Both particles and antiparticles escaping carry positive energy away from the black hole. The consumed virtual particles carry negative energy into the black hole. Therefore the mass decreases.
If he keeps coming up with more and more unlikely mechanisms in an attempt to disprove something that is almost certainly happening people will lose patience with him. Delay of game should have a penalty.
All the good intention in the world won't do you any good if the 'fix' isn't practical.
Whether a fact is true or false has nothing to do with whether it can be changed. I can't change the rest mass of an electron. That doesn't mean that the electron doesn't have a rest mass.
That's total bullshit ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a conservative bias in their reporting. Most of what they do is parroting Faux News. Are you that partisan that you can't see that?
The only thing I can think about that would fit in "many others" would be BBC and CBC. And by liberal bias there you'd have to mean "not an explicit conservative bias."
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
More conservative propaganda. This study doesn't make comparison by age ranges. Right now old conservative people have the most to give. Most of what they give goes to their churches, which buys big screen TVs for the overflow room. It also assumes religious outreach constitutes giving, when, in fact, it is predominantly indoctrination rather than aid. When you look in each age category and discount religious volunteering and donation that doesn't include actual assistance to the poor or downtrodden or for non-religious charitable purpose, at most ages liberals give more, because they give to actual social programs, not to their church.
You still spouting this bullshit? Per capita income isn't a single number that everyone in a district earns. It does divide middle class urban from poor urban. Urban areas vote for democrats. I'm guessing you'll find the poorest urban areas also vote for democrats But it only takes one or two CEOs in a district to skew average incomes (which is what per capita means). That doesn't mean that the rich people in those districts are voting for democrats, it means that even there the poor and lower middle class outnumber the rich. Poll data is far more reliable in indicating voting trends versus income and it doesn't support your point of view in urban areas. In rural areas, the poor tend to be social conservatives and the republicans have been very good on capitalizing on their fear that blacks, gays, mexicans and black mexican gays are going to kill babies and raise the taxes that poor people currently don't pay.
And also cut the bull on taxes. The fact that Bill Gates has no income is the reason that it will be good to get the estate tax back at some reasonable level. Or just tax the heirs as if it was regular income. Right now people are getting a step up in capital gains basis without paying any taxes. If the tax cut is not renewed for people earning over $250K they still keep the cut on their first 250K or income. If it comes down to sacrificing the tax cuts entirely in order to protect the high earners the republicans will do it. Cause they gotta protect those poor rich people. For that matter why does it matter if most of those 2.5% are S corps? Most S corps are owned by individual people who started an S corp to avoid paying taxes on the "corporation's" profit at their marginal rate. They can always convert back to a sole proprietorship or partnership. While we're at it let's get capital gains and investment income tax rates up to the same rates as regular income. Why should idle non-participatory investing be considered superior to working for a living? We've seen how "don't tax the rich" policies have worked out for the past 30 years... Richer rich people. Poorer poor people. And the middle class are rapidly turning into poor people.
Sorry about that. In part 135, the pilot can authorize people to carry weapons. It when someone brings aboard a weapon without the pilot's knowledge or authorization that there is a violation.
You may not get searched, but the pilot would be in violation if he operates under FAR Part 135 (Operating requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft) and would potentially lose his certificate if you carried a accessible dangerous weapon or explosives aboard. If he can legitimately claim operating under part 91 (i.e. you didn't "hire" him, but are paying part of the cost of the flight) he would be OK. But if he runs an air taxi service, that wouldn't fly. Whether the FAA has the authority to search bags or passengers during a ramp check, I don't know. They probably do. I don't know if attempting to bring a weapon aboard a Part 135 flight is a felony or not.
You can't just look at FAR Part 91 and claim you're OK carrying a weapon. You need to look in parts 107-109 if your plane is located at an airport. And then check Part 121 if you fly passengers for money. And in this case the overriding item is found under "Operations in Foreign Countries" which states that if you are in a country that has a rule that is more strict than the FARs, you follow the stricter of the two.
At any rate Part 108 Section 201 Paragraph (e) says "(e) Explosive, incendiary, deadly or dangerous weapon: Prohibitions. (1) Except as provided in 108.219, 108.221, and 108.223, no aircraft operator may permit any person to have an explosive, incendiary, or deadly or dangerous weapon, on or about the individual's person or accessible property when onboard an aircraft."
In the US, that section applies to charter and scheduled passenger operations. It also, according to some readings, may apply to Part 91 operators going to or from airports where Part 121 operations occur. Consult a aviation lawyer before carrying an accessible weapon aboard a private airplane if you want to keep flying.
There's no reason that Japan can't make a similar rule extended to all private operators. Some countries where private small airplane ownership is rare, they might not have separate rules for private operations. Or they might base their rules on aircraft weight rather than the purpose of the flight.
With the reduction of government interference in the economy comes a return to sound money and sound investments.
You do understand that "sound money" policies like the gold standard lead to frequent large boom/bust cycles. We've had two depressions in the last century. In the century before that they were happening every 15-20 years. The problem is that it's difficult to stabilize gold's relative value even if you fix its price and it's difficult to change the money supply.
The government doesn't need to do it. Someone else will. If it's not profitable to protect the citizens then, obviously, the citizens don't want/need to be protected.
Seriously, that is the libertarian mantra: If it can't make a profit, then it doesn't need to be done. If it can make a profit, no matter how small, someone will do it. The free market will fix all problems.
It's a position that ignores a quarter million years of observed human behavior and has about as much evidence as geocentrism.
Have you actually read any of those books? Religious laws are about what you can eat and when, what items you can't eat together, who you can sell into slavery and when, when you can have sex and who you can have sex with and how people should be killed if they have sex the wrong way or with the wrong person, list upon list of things that are "unclean", how to be obedient, and how to make sacrifices to god(s). Very few are about how people should treat each other.
Java : Nothing I'm seeing in the current agreement precludes Java anymore. Of course, JIT would be problematic, but interpreted and/or compiled-to-native Java is completely feasible now.
Interpreted Java is still forbidden. Java would need to be compiled directly to native code before the App store would accept it. A JVM with or without JIT or worse (in Apple's opinion) a DVM is still not permitted according to the app store developer agreement. But yes, in theory you could develop an Android to iOS layer and compile an Android app into an iOS binary. Be sure not to have the word "android" in it.
JavaScript/HTML5 : One could imagine a pretty rich app written in a mixture of HTML5 and native code.
JavaScript is already allowed is you are using the javascript interpreter in webkit. This doesn't change that. No non-webkit implementations of a javascript interpreter are allowed, however.
One of the more amusing side effects of this rule set is the the words "android", "droid", "blackberry", "linux" and "java" are no longer permitted in any app or its metadata. So that game you wanted to write about rampaging androids, not allowed. Better make them into robots. Unless someone releases a phone called the "robot", then that's not allowed either. Also, no cookbook apps that feature berry pies or coffee are allowed.
If it's produced in North Korea, then it's a pretty safe bet that the money is used to support the North Korean government. Otherwise, the government would have never agreed to export it.
Any foreign money going into North Korea directly supports the North Korean government. It's illegal to have foreign currency in North Korea, so in order to pay workers, Rupert needs to exchange US dollars for North Korean Won (KPW), which are just colored pieces of paper. The only way to do that is through the government. KPW are essentially worthless, since whenever there is the threat of a middle class developing in North Korea, Kim voids all outstanding currency and issues new currency. So anyone with any cash (or anything in a bank account) is suddenly bankrupt, and has to start from zero like everyone else.
I'm sure Murdoch salivates at the idea of developing such a system in the U.S. (with him as dictator, of course).
Imagine how low wages would be in a country where no one has money, and anyone who does still can't afford food... I assume it's typical exploitation of labor rather than Murdoch doing something sinister.
For doing things that are contrary to the interests of the United States, it's much easier to use Fox News to generate worldwide animosity toward the US and its interests. Why bother trying to use a 3rd world country with tiny (50kT) nukes when worldwide opinion is so much more damaging?
Slashdot Mirror
Both particles and antiparticles escaping carry positive energy away from the black hole. The consumed virtual particles carry negative energy into the black hole. Therefore the mass decreases.
If he keeps coming up with more and more unlikely mechanisms in an attempt to disprove something that is almost certainly happening people will lose patience with him. Delay of game should have a penalty.
All the good intention in the world won't do you any good if the 'fix' isn't practical.
Whether a fact is true or false has nothing to do with whether it can be changed. I can't change the rest mass of an electron. That doesn't mean that the electron doesn't have a rest mass.
It's worse than that. The Tea Party is part if it.
That's total bullshit ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a conservative bias in their reporting. Most of what they do is parroting Faux News. Are you that partisan that you can't see that?
The only thing I can think about that would fit in "many others" would be BBC and CBC. And by liberal bias there you'd have to mean "not an explicit conservative bias."
I should also add that it's anonymous conservative bastards like you that this country needs to be saved from.
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
More conservative propaganda. This study doesn't make comparison by age ranges. Right now old conservative people have the most to give. Most of what they give goes to their churches, which buys big screen TVs for the overflow room. It also assumes religious outreach constitutes giving, when, in fact, it is predominantly indoctrination rather than aid. When you look in each age category and discount religious volunteering and donation that doesn't include actual assistance to the poor or downtrodden or for non-religious charitable purpose, at most ages liberals give more, because they give to actual social programs, not to their church.
You still spouting this bullshit? Per capita income isn't a single number that everyone in a district earns. It does divide middle class urban from poor urban. Urban areas vote for democrats. I'm guessing you'll find the poorest urban areas also vote for democrats But it only takes one or two CEOs in a district to skew average incomes (which is what per capita means). That doesn't mean that the rich people in those districts are voting for democrats, it means that even there the poor and lower middle class outnumber the rich. Poll data is far more reliable in indicating voting trends versus income and it doesn't support your point of view in urban areas. In rural areas, the poor tend to be social conservatives and the republicans have been very good on capitalizing on their fear that blacks, gays, mexicans and black mexican gays are going to kill babies and raise the taxes that poor people currently don't pay.
And also cut the bull on taxes. The fact that Bill Gates has no income is the reason that it will be good to get the estate tax back at some reasonable level. Or just tax the heirs as if it was regular income. Right now people are getting a step up in capital gains basis without paying any taxes. If the tax cut is not renewed for people earning over $250K they still keep the cut on their first 250K or income. If it comes down to sacrificing the tax cuts entirely in order to protect the high earners the republicans will do it. Cause they gotta protect those poor rich people. For that matter why does it matter if most of those 2.5% are S corps? Most S corps are owned by individual people who started an S corp to avoid paying taxes on the "corporation's" profit at their marginal rate. They can always convert back to a sole proprietorship or partnership. While we're at it let's get capital gains and investment income tax rates up to the same rates as regular income. Why should idle non-participatory investing be considered superior to working for a living? We've seen how "don't tax the rich" policies have worked out for the past 30 years... Richer rich people. Poorer poor people. And the middle class are rapidly turning into poor people.
Sorry about that. In part 135, the pilot can authorize people to carry weapons. It when someone brings aboard a weapon without the pilot's knowledge or authorization that there is a violation.
Did he wreck the last one he bought?
You may not get searched, but the pilot would be in violation if he operates under FAR Part 135 (Operating requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft) and would potentially lose his certificate if you carried a accessible dangerous weapon or explosives aboard. If he can legitimately claim operating under part 91 (i.e. you didn't "hire" him, but are paying part of the cost of the flight) he would be OK. But if he runs an air taxi service, that wouldn't fly. Whether the FAA has the authority to search bags or passengers during a ramp check, I don't know. They probably do. I don't know if attempting to bring a weapon aboard a Part 135 flight is a felony or not.
How many times have you flown a private plane to Japan? Are you entirely sure it works the same way there?
You can't just look at FAR Part 91 and claim you're OK carrying a weapon. You need to look in parts 107-109 if your plane is located at an airport. And then check Part 121 if you fly passengers for money. And in this case the overriding item is found under "Operations in Foreign Countries" which states that if you are in a country that has a rule that is more strict than the FARs, you follow the stricter of the two.
At any rate Part 108 Section 201 Paragraph (e) says "(e) Explosive, incendiary, deadly or dangerous weapon: Prohibitions. (1) Except as provided in 108.219, 108.221, and 108.223, no aircraft operator may permit any person to have an explosive, incendiary, or deadly or dangerous weapon, on or about the individual's person or accessible property when onboard an aircraft."
In the US, that section applies to charter and scheduled passenger operations. It also, according to some readings, may apply to Part 91 operators going to or from airports where Part 121 operations occur. Consult a aviation lawyer before carrying an accessible weapon aboard a private airplane if you want to keep flying.
There's no reason that Japan can't make a similar rule extended to all private operators. Some countries where private small airplane ownership is rare, they might not have separate rules for private operations. Or they might base their rules on aircraft weight rather than the purpose of the flight.
Why should we believe your "heads-up"? It's not like goatse trolls tell you where they are taking you (although they usually use an unmangled URL).
As a matter of fact, why don't goatse trolls use shortened URLs?
Anyhow, clicking on a shortened URL can get you fired, arrested or divorced. Why would you do it?
With the reduction of government interference in the economy comes a return to sound money and sound investments.
You do understand that "sound money" policies like the gold standard lead to frequent large boom/bust cycles. We've had two depressions in the last century. In the century before that they were happening every 15-20 years. The problem is that it's difficult to stabilize gold's relative value even if you fix its price and it's difficult to change the money supply.
The government doesn't need to do it. Someone else will. If it's not profitable to protect the citizens then, obviously, the citizens don't want/need to be protected.
Seriously, that is the libertarian mantra: If it can't make a profit, then it doesn't need to be done. If it can make a profit, no matter how small, someone will do it. The free market will fix all problems.
It's a position that ignores a quarter million years of observed human behavior and has about as much evidence as geocentrism.
Have you actually read any of those books? Religious laws are about what you can eat and when, what items you can't eat together, who you can sell into slavery and when, when you can have sex and who you can have sex with and how people should be killed if they have sex the wrong way or with the wrong person, list upon list of things that are "unclean", how to be obedient, and how to make sacrifices to god(s). Very few are about how people should treat each other.
Java : Nothing I'm seeing in the current agreement precludes Java anymore. Of course, JIT would be problematic, but interpreted and/or compiled-to-native Java is completely feasible now.
Interpreted Java is still forbidden. Java would need to be compiled directly to native code before the App store would accept it. A JVM with or without JIT or worse (in Apple's opinion) a DVM is still not permitted according to the app store developer agreement. But yes, in theory you could develop an Android to iOS layer and compile an Android app into an iOS binary. Be sure not to have the word "android" in it.
JavaScript/HTML5 : One could imagine a pretty rich app written in a mixture of HTML5 and native code.
JavaScript is already allowed is you are using the javascript interpreter in webkit. This doesn't change that. No non-webkit implementations of a javascript interpreter are allowed, however.
One of the more amusing side effects of this rule set is the the words "android", "droid", "blackberry", "linux" and "java" are no longer permitted in any app or its metadata. So that game you wanted to write about rampaging androids, not allowed. Better make them into robots. Unless someone releases a phone called the "robot", then that's not allowed either. Also, no cookbook apps that feature berry pies or coffee are allowed.
I'll just let the secret police know who they should quietly execute.
That's why I've changed my name to "me".
Shhhh! Don't tell Steve!
Potentially, yes. And if Apple decides to do function X itself, all traces of the existence of those apps will be wiped from the timeline.
If it's produced in North Korea, then it's a pretty safe bet that the money is used to support the North Korean government. Otherwise, the government would have never agreed to export it.
Any foreign money going into North Korea directly supports the North Korean government. It's illegal to have foreign currency in North Korea, so in order to pay workers, Rupert needs to exchange US dollars for North Korean Won (KPW), which are just colored pieces of paper. The only way to do that is through the government. KPW are essentially worthless, since whenever there is the threat of a middle class developing in North Korea, Kim voids all outstanding currency and issues new currency. So anyone with any cash (or anything in a bank account) is suddenly bankrupt, and has to start from zero like everyone else.
I'm sure Murdoch salivates at the idea of developing such a system in the U.S. (with him as dictator, of course).
Imagine how low wages would be in a country where no one has money, and anyone who does still can't afford food... I assume it's typical exploitation of labor rather than Murdoch doing something sinister.
For doing things that are contrary to the interests of the United States, it's much easier to use Fox News to generate worldwide animosity toward the US and its interests. Why bother trying to use a 3rd world country with tiny (50kT) nukes when worldwide opinion is so much more damaging?
Too embarrassed to say you're reading this from an iPad?
And no, there is no peer review of a press release unless the PI arranges it himself.