No. We wouldn't retaliate with nukes. We would take over the country using conventional forces in less than a week then go to the UN to figure out what we were going to do with them.
So yes, there was a cubian missile crisis. I have two more words since we are battling with quotes: "Cold War".
Canada claims it didn't do it. No, they would never supply a disgruntled militia group with the means to blow up Detroit. You have a smoking crater where Detroit used to be, but the rest of the world has no proof that Canada actually did it, except what you're telling them.
That's the problem with republicans right now. When you back a shifty president you expect everyone else to be as shifty and foolish.
I was trying to be funny, but I was also being honest. I have little respect for people who think they are right, myself included when I fall into that trap.
This is why when discussing things of substance I almost always attach things like "I think --- might be because ---", and I sure as hell never assume I'm right and enjoy substantiated corrections.
Unless it's math of course. But that's why I go to school to study math.
The only relationships I can find for any triangle ABC and point P, without doing trig on measured numbers, are (labeling the two sides formed from p closed to a e and f, with e closer to c. Labeling the sides near b d and f with f closer to a):
e-d=b-a and d-e=a-b f-e=c-b and e-f=b-c d-f=a-c and f-d=c-a
It strikes me that these relationships will give the needed side lengths for any measurable triangle, but they still feel sort of hackish.
I'm just wondering if someone spotted a better answer (no trig, the accuracy of the ruler is not specified)
More realistically, after you've been talking to people for a while you learn to use these fancy things called words to express what you're trying to say.
"Diversity" and "Open Source" are not mutually exclusive. I don't disagree that diversity in software can be highly benificial -- that's why on my personal network I run 5 different OS's (three of them being different Linux distros).
No, you do that because you're a huge nerd and have no life.
I worked off the exact wording you provided. I don't really care if that was incorrect [nor do I remember], I was simply arguing from your point without introducing new knowledge. There was no need for me to do so, because what you said contradicted itself.
You were never on the debate team then I take it?
Though insulting your opponents is a guarnteed way to win their support, you should keep doing it.
"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
Your summary is completely wrong.
[Because] IF we make the wrong choice [vote for Kerry] THEN the danger is we will be hit again AND we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.
IF (that should happen [and we made the wrong choice]) AND (we fall back into a pre-9/11 mindset [that terrorist attacks are ciminal not war]) THEN I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
So he is making three claims:
(1) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> [HIT AGAIN] (2) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> devastating to country. (3) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] and [PRE-9/11 MINDSET] -> Terrible mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
No. We wouldn't retaliate with nukes. We would take over the country using conventional forces in less than a week then go to the UN to figure out what we were going to do with them.
So yes, there was a cubian missile crisis. I have two more words since we are battling with quotes: "Cold War".
What world do you live in? That is exactly everything that wouldn't happen.
You don't happen to be one of those who think Saddam was behind 9/11 do you? That's the only way what you just say makes any sense.
Canada claims it didn't do it. No, they would never supply a disgruntled militia group with the means to blow up Detroit. You have a smoking crater where Detroit used to be, but the rest of the world has no proof that Canada actually did it, except what you're telling them.
That's the problem with republicans right now. When you back a shifty president you expect everyone else to be as shifty and foolish.
See the global test earlier in this thread.
Canada attacks us => Canada would be taken over before the debate got to the GA.
Read the UN charter if you're going to talk like an expert about UN policy.
Did you have to go outside for TWO WHOLE DAYS?
Was it scary?
I almost feel sorry for you.
Almost.
I was trying to be funny, but I was also being honest. I have little respect for people who think they are right, myself included when I fall into that trap.
This is why when discussing things of substance I almost always attach things like "I think --- might be because ---", and I sure as hell never assume I'm right and enjoy substantiated corrections.
Unless it's math of course. But that's why I go to school to study math.
I mean, everyone thinks their opinion and their judgement is dead-on right.
No, I'm sorry that is the definition of an idiot.
Uh, astroturf much?
You need a cert to study?
The part where the blogs make up their own shared reality just as disjoint with the real world as mass media is.
Blogs: Now your authorities are copy-catting non-professionals!
The origional problem did not specify an equlateral triangle.
Right, being against killing innocent people makes you a liberal?
And since the opposite stance must belong to the other party, you just said that conservatives are for the murder of innocents.
Seriously, think before you open your mouth.
Please stop bringing up encryption every single time the word quantum apears.
It's more than mildly annoying.
The only relationships I can find for any triangle ABC and point P, without doing trig on measured numbers, are (labeling the two sides formed from p closed to a e and f, with e closer to c. Labeling the sides near b d and f with f closer to a):
e-d=b-a and d-e=a-b
f-e=c-b and e-f=b-c
d-f=a-c and f-d=c-a
It strikes me that these relationships will give the needed side lengths for any measurable triangle, but they still feel sort of hackish.
I'm just wondering if someone spotted a better answer (no trig, the accuracy of the ruler is not specified)
More realistically, after you've been talking to people for a while you learn to use these fancy things called words to express what you're trying to say.
Who'da thunk it?
From the description in the story, the light doesn't slow much but rather gets trapped inside the glass going in circles.
"Diversity" and "Open Source" are not mutually exclusive. I don't disagree that diversity in software can be highly benificial -- that's why on my personal network I run 5 different OS's (three of them being different Linux distros).
No, you do that because you're a huge nerd and have no life.
Uh, according to that graph MSIE was loosing share and "Netscape (including Mozilla)" was gaining share at the end of the month.
Yes, you have definitely proven the trend doesn't exist...
I worked off the exact wording you provided. I don't really care if that was incorrect [nor do I remember], I was simply arguing from your point without introducing new knowledge. There was no need for me to do so, because what you said contradicted itself.
You were never on the debate team then I take it?
Though insulting your opponents is a guarnteed way to win their support, you should keep doing it.
Uh, your confusing religion with politics.
Don't do that.
Covering your eyes does not a reply make.
Oh, and party agendas never change then?
Did you even pass civics 101?
"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
Your summary is completely wrong.
[Because] IF we make the wrong choice [vote for Kerry] THEN the danger is we will be hit again AND we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.
IF (that should happen [and we made the wrong choice]) AND (we fall back into a pre-9/11 mindset [that terrorist attacks are ciminal not war]) THEN I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
So he is making three claims:
(1) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> [HIT AGAIN]
(2) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> devastating to country.
(3) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] and [PRE-9/11 MINDSET] -> Terrible mistake.
Refute, please.
So what happens to the people who make up their own minds about the individual issues and happen to disagree with the parties on a few points?
Do they just get to sit on the sidelines while the elites duke it out in their name?