I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start using the latest study on the feeding habits of the lesser spotted hippokangorocibull to debunk that which has already been debunked just to satisfy your preposterous appetite for the absurd.
Who both and independently not only worked out the threshold dose through self-experimentation, using the same methods they also discovered what are even now considered the Holy Bible of lethal dose and one of the few successful chemical interventions to treat alcoholism.
no, this is running into a burning school and coming out with an unconscious child who was not marked in the register. Nobody knows he was in there, not even you, but notwithstanding the fact that you're a fucking hero to the kid, his friends and his parents, technically you had no business being in the building and therefore stand to be arrested and charged with trespass.
I put in the submission with ZERO inline links (why are there now FOUR?) no post commentary (UNNECESSARY) and no spelling or grammatical errors.
And for those who are overthinking this in terms of theoretical physics: go get a life, I was commenting on observed phenomena, not how fucking fast light was travelling in vacuo relative to the counterspin of charmed quarks - and there's your yardstick. 299792458m/s. Stick that in 168,000 years and there is your distance to event.
this is fucking Slashdot, where the editors mangle the shit out of submissions, injecting spelling and grammatical errors where there previously were none, inject links where there were none, and take submissions completely out of context and repost them as original work. I won't be doing that again. Fuckers.
1. pass contract to build "secured" site to lowest bidder 2. blame some spotty kid for vulnerabilities that he himself reported to you, get him arrested and settle out of court for some seven digit sum which he'll be paying off the rest of his life 3. use some of that money to fix that single problem...
n. PROFIT! Reputation intact but when this hits the wires don't expect to hear of any more vulnerabilities until the next audit.
...and mount a conical mirror with the apex inward, I'd say on a cutout lens cap. Very easily doable with superglue and a couple paperclips. In fact, it's been done with smartphones. I think there's one out for the iphone 4.
Speaking as a rifle owner, it's as much, if not more, down to the skill of the shooter than the quality of the firearm.
I cut my teeth on a.223 semi, and upgraded to a Browning Safari Mk. II.308 Winchester. Best move I ever made in powdercharge. Making the move to air was the second best move I ever made. Ammo is lighter, there's zero flash, and the discharge is a LOT quieter and comes with a LOT less kick. OK the ammo being lighter means that it might not cut it when war be declared, but damn, I can drop a rabbit at 200 yards on a clear day with no wind. Stalking across a field with something that reports quieter than a camera shutter plate means I rarely if ever have to push out to that kind of range anyway; 40-60 is about average and I've missed probably twice for over a thousand kills.
shockingly enough, it is! I can get a 1080p panel for my Toshiba for £40! That's about £280 cheaper than it would have been for me to go premium when I first specced the thing...!
I don't suppose he pointed out the obvious flaw in the decision to go 16:9 or 16:10 in the print industry stems from the fact that print media runs on a page aspect ratio of 2:3 which just happens to be the EXACT same ratio of a 35mm film frame in portrait mode. You're talking a LOT of whitespace on a horizontally-arranged panel. For those who like to keep everything on one screen, having a toolbar take up what, 1/5 of the total real estate down the side of the panel isn't so bad, in fact it is fucking perfect when you can view the entire page on the same screen. Why add another 30% to the horizontal resolution, if not to add again to the toolbar? It hasn't happened, in fact the only discernible reason for going 16:9 or 16:10 is to pander to the decision made in moving media to use that aspect ratio in HD content.
if you're doing anything other than playing games or watching movies.
I write a lot. I find it inconvenient having to hide my toolbars just so I can see my layouts. What I've ended up doing is rotating an external monitor 90 degrees *just so I can see the layout and keep my toolbar on the main screen*. I didn't have to do this on my 4:3 Latitude with its 1600x1200 resolution, toolbars sat there comfortably to the right of the main pane and neither got in the way of the other. I miss that.
The joke of the whole business is the standard resolution on budgets laptops being the same as for QHD televisions. We know where the design priority was there. I might be on a budget laptop, that was a buying decision based on the need for a dual core processor and active scaling graphics memory, but it would be nice (and I know it is possible, I've done it with 4:3 panels) to have made available, replacement panels with higher resolutions. If Apple can do it (as they have been for years), fucking Toshiba can do it.
Failing that, just let me get a few grand together and I'm forking out on a tricked-to-shit iCinema.
Footnote: I don't like ribbon interfaces, they're nothing more than a half-arsed attempt to justify sucky screen resolutions and even suckier aspect ratios. If I find myself in a situation where I only have the one (fixed, low resolution 16:9) screen, I'd rather have floating toolbars a la The Gimp which I can toss to the back or park on the side until I need them. Yes, I have a netbook, and no I don't like the screen. 1024x600 is no good for most websites which need another 200 vertical at least, it does as a stuff-into-pocket streaming video monitor when I'm out shooting conferences and the like, but as a productivity machine? Forget that idea. It just doesn't work for me. 1366x768 is the bare minimum *I* would expect on a screen that size, scaling to my Toshiba (15.6" vs. 10.1") I DEMAND 1920x1080 MINIMUM!
from the same page (I guess you missed it and decided to ignore my static assumption of a vessel whose volume cannot change):
"If the increase in volume on freezing is prevented, an increased pressure of up to 25 MPa may be generated in water pipes; easily capable of bursting them in Winter. An interesting question concerns what would happen to water cooled below 0 C within a vessel that cannot change its volume (isochoric cooling). Clearly if ice forms, its increased volume causes an increase in pressure which would lower the freezing point at least until the lowest melting point (-21.985 C) is reached at 209.9 MPa. A recent thermodynamic analysis concludes that ice nucleation cannot arise above -109 C during isochoric cooling, which is close to the upper bound of the realm of deeply supercooled water (-113 C), so it is unclear if ice would ever freeze in such a (unreal) system."
just thought of a practical experiment (one I did at school, actually), assuming you have access to a walk-in freezer (or my living room which is perishing cold right now because my heating's been off a couple days. Failing that, a domestic freezer):
Take 1 ice cube, two one-ounce lead weights, and a length of copper wire or fishing line. Tie the weights together with the wire/line with a space of about four inches between the two weights, and put the assembly across the ice so the wire rests on the ice and the weights hang freely. After a while, the wire will be *through* the ice rather than on top of it and its path will have refrozen behind it. The pressure of the wire on the ice has melted it and allowed it to travel through, yet the temperature of the ice block has remained constant.
it's not true that subsurface water in the Arctic ocean isn't freezing: it is, continually. What salinity does is disrupt the phase equilibrium between liquid and solid so the water phases between solid and liquid at a faster rate than the liquid phasing to solid, ergo the mass remains a liquid. That's only considering salinity. Absent pressure at depth, the entire ocean would be a block of ice right now, but see my other post in this thread (here) as to the other reason the Arctic ocean is liquid.
Under pressure, the freezing point of water is lowered. The more pressure, the lower the ice point. To demonstrate:
Assume that a container is indestructible (let's say, a sphere with a perfect seal). It is full of water with no gas in solution or loose in bubbles or anything like that. Just pure water. Now, stick it in a deep freeze. Wait. Water has the odd property of expanding at around 4C at normal (sea level) pressure. By the time it freezes at 0C under those same pressure conditions, it has expanded to fill 1/8 more volume than it did as a liquid. This is why icebergs float. This is why distilled water ice cubes also float. The liquid water does its thing and... you know the rest. Titanic.
The water in the sphere is prevented from freezing for the simple reason that it has nowhere to go. It has no space to expand into. If it cannot expand, it cannot freeze. How low can you go? I have no idea, having no access to magnetocaloric equipment. But I daresay, you wouldn't meet the conditions required to get the volume of water to contract to the point where it can solidify in the available space, outside of a suitably equipped laboratory or in the shadow of an outer planet.
Further reading suggests temperatures approaching/lower than about 70K (-203C) to achieve this. Further reading.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start using the latest study on the feeding habits of the lesser spotted hippokangorocibull to debunk that which has already been debunked just to satisfy your preposterous appetite for the absurd.
I think I'd rather ask Dr. Leary or Dr. Hofmann.
Who both and independently not only worked out the threshold dose through self-experimentation, using the same methods they also discovered what are even now considered the Holy Bible of lethal dose and one of the few successful chemical interventions to treat alcoholism.
oh, yes, 1936.
"Marihuana turns you GAY!!"
Well, fuck me, as long as that's all it does...
no, this is running into a burning school and coming out with an unconscious child who was not marked in the register. Nobody knows he was in there, not even you, but notwithstanding the fact that you're a fucking hero to the kid, his friends and his parents, technically you had no business being in the building and therefore stand to be arrested and charged with trespass.
Before he arserapes any more submissions.
I put in the submission with ZERO inline links (why are there now FOUR?) no post commentary (UNNECESSARY) and no spelling or grammatical errors.
And for those who are overthinking this in terms of theoretical physics: go get a life, I was commenting on observed phenomena, not how fucking fast light was travelling in vacuo relative to the counterspin of charmed quarks - and there's your yardstick. 299792458m/s. Stick that in 168,000 years and there is your distance to event.
yet he is still villified as a paedophile.
To borrow from the contemporary slang: smh.
this is fucking Slashdot, where the editors mangle the shit out of submissions, injecting spelling and grammatical errors where there previously were none, inject links where there were none, and take submissions completely out of context and repost them as original work. I won't be doing that again. Fuckers.
1. pass contract to build "secured" site to lowest bidder ...
2. blame some spotty kid for vulnerabilities that he himself reported to you, get him arrested and settle out of court for some seven digit sum which he'll be paying off the rest of his life
3. use some of that money to fix that single problem
n. PROFIT! Reputation intact but when this hits the wires don't expect to hear of any more vulnerabilities until the next audit.
Global warming causes hard winter! Film at 11! Yes, it's time for that abortion "The Day After Tomorrow"!
I mean, seriously, have you fucking idiots not heard yourselves??
Excessive warming contributes to desertification. I've seen the news, Niagara Falls is fucking FROZEN! For only the second time in THIRTY FIVE YEARS!
Computer models based on biased data is SO trumped by the actual physical *evidence* it's not fucking funny anymore.
Be right with you, trying to calibrate this dynoscanner...
...and mount a conical mirror with the apex inward, I'd say on a cutout lens cap. Very easily doable with superglue and a couple paperclips. In fact, it's been done with smartphones. I think there's one out for the iphone 4.
a prototype flying car was built in 1948. I can't remember who built it, but it did fly.
ironic that the Nobel Peace Prize is named for the inventor of dynamite. Another thing that is used to great effect in killing people.
But hey, don't let that stop your rant. Carry on.
I was issued one of those. Handed the piece of shit back, said I wanted my BAR.
Speaking as a rifle owner, it's as much, if not more, down to the skill of the shooter than the quality of the firearm.
I cut my teeth on a .223 semi, and upgraded to a Browning Safari Mk. II .308 Winchester. Best move I ever made in powdercharge. Making the move to air was the second best move I ever made. Ammo is lighter, there's zero flash, and the discharge is a LOT quieter and comes with a LOT less kick. OK the ammo being lighter means that it might not cut it when war be declared, but damn, I can drop a rabbit at 200 yards on a clear day with no wind. Stalking across a field with something that reports quieter than a camera shutter plate means I rarely if ever have to push out to that kind of range anyway; 40-60 is about average and I've missed probably twice for over a thousand kills.
shockingly enough, it is! I can get a 1080p panel for my Toshiba for £40! That's about £280 cheaper than it would have been for me to go premium when I first specced the thing...!
same. Still use mine, although getting hold of batteries these days is a sod so it tends to be chained to my desk.
damn. Just tested this out on my HP W1907V 19" at 1440x900 and I could still make out the step - without squinting - from 11 feet across the room!
I don't suppose he pointed out the obvious flaw in the decision to go 16:9 or 16:10 in the print industry stems from the fact that print media runs on a page aspect ratio of 2:3 which just happens to be the EXACT same ratio of a 35mm film frame in portrait mode. You're talking a LOT of whitespace on a horizontally-arranged panel. For those who like to keep everything on one screen, having a toolbar take up what, 1/5 of the total real estate down the side of the panel isn't so bad, in fact it is fucking perfect when you can view the entire page on the same screen. Why add another 30% to the horizontal resolution, if not to add again to the toolbar? It hasn't happened, in fact the only discernible reason for going 16:9 or 16:10 is to pander to the decision made in moving media to use that aspect ratio in HD content.
if you're doing anything other than playing games or watching movies.
I write a lot. I find it inconvenient having to hide my toolbars just so I can see my layouts. What I've ended up doing is rotating an external monitor 90 degrees *just so I can see the layout and keep my toolbar on the main screen*. I didn't have to do this on my 4:3 Latitude with its 1600x1200 resolution, toolbars sat there comfortably to the right of the main pane and neither got in the way of the other. I miss that.
The joke of the whole business is the standard resolution on budgets laptops being the same as for QHD televisions. We know where the design priority was there. I might be on a budget laptop, that was a buying decision based on the need for a dual core processor and active scaling graphics memory, but it would be nice (and I know it is possible, I've done it with 4:3 panels) to have made available, replacement panels with higher resolutions. If Apple can do it (as they have been for years), fucking Toshiba can do it.
Failing that, just let me get a few grand together and I'm forking out on a tricked-to-shit iCinema.
Footnote: I don't like ribbon interfaces, they're nothing more than a half-arsed attempt to justify sucky screen resolutions and even suckier aspect ratios. If I find myself in a situation where I only have the one (fixed, low resolution 16:9) screen, I'd rather have floating toolbars a la The Gimp which I can toss to the back or park on the side until I need them. Yes, I have a netbook, and no I don't like the screen. 1024x600 is no good for most websites which need another 200 vertical at least, it does as a stuff-into-pocket streaming video monitor when I'm out shooting conferences and the like, but as a productivity machine? Forget that idea. It just doesn't work for me. 1366x768 is the bare minimum *I* would expect on a screen that size, scaling to my Toshiba (15.6" vs. 10.1") I DEMAND 1920x1080 MINIMUM!
(yep, I suffer from terminal resolution envy).
from the same page (I guess you missed it and decided to ignore my static assumption of a vessel whose volume cannot change):
"If the increase in volume on freezing is prevented, an increased pressure of up to 25 MPa may be generated in water pipes; easily capable of bursting them in Winter. An interesting question concerns what would happen to water cooled below 0 C within a vessel that cannot change its volume (isochoric cooling). Clearly if ice forms, its increased volume causes an increase in pressure which would lower the freezing point at least until the lowest melting point (-21.985 C) is reached at 209.9 MPa. A recent thermodynamic analysis concludes that ice nucleation cannot arise above -109 C during isochoric cooling, which is close to the upper bound of the realm of deeply supercooled water (-113 C), so it is unclear if ice would ever freeze in such a (unreal) system."
just thought of a practical experiment (one I did at school, actually), assuming you have access to a walk-in freezer (or my living room which is perishing cold right now because my heating's been off a couple days. Failing that, a domestic freezer):
Take 1 ice cube, two one-ounce lead weights, and a length of copper wire or fishing line. Tie the weights together with the wire/line with a space of about four inches between the two weights, and put the assembly across the ice so the wire rests on the ice and the weights hang freely. After a while, the wire will be *through* the ice rather than on top of it and its path will have refrozen behind it. The pressure of the wire on the ice has melted it and allowed it to travel through, yet the temperature of the ice block has remained constant.
it's not true that subsurface water in the Arctic ocean isn't freezing: it is, continually. What salinity does is disrupt the phase equilibrium between liquid and solid so the water phases between solid and liquid at a faster rate than the liquid phasing to solid, ergo the mass remains a liquid. That's only considering salinity. Absent pressure at depth, the entire ocean would be a block of ice right now, but see my other post in this thread (here) as to the other reason the Arctic ocean is liquid.
...said the physics teacher.
Under pressure, the freezing point of water is lowered. The more pressure, the lower the ice point. To demonstrate:
Assume that a container is indestructible (let's say, a sphere with a perfect seal). It is full of water with no gas in solution or loose in bubbles or anything like that. Just pure water. Now, stick it in a deep freeze. Wait.
Water has the odd property of expanding at around 4C at normal (sea level) pressure. By the time it freezes at 0C under those same pressure conditions, it has expanded to fill 1/8 more volume than it did as a liquid. This is why icebergs float. This is why distilled water ice cubes also float. The liquid water does its thing and... you know the rest. Titanic.
The water in the sphere is prevented from freezing for the simple reason that it has nowhere to go. It has no space to expand into. If it cannot expand, it cannot freeze. How low can you go? I have no idea, having no access to magnetocaloric equipment. But I daresay, you wouldn't meet the conditions required to get the volume of water to contract to the point where it can solidify in the available space, outside of a suitably equipped laboratory or in the shadow of an outer planet.
Further reading suggests temperatures approaching/lower than about 70K (-203C) to achieve this. Further reading.
You can't know any of that because nobody is telling the public what's going on in GTMO.
What you're doing is parrotting Fox News.
What you're doing is subscribing to the fallacy that if someone is being detained they must have done something wrong.
Tell that to the Birmingham Six.
Fool.