It's our understanding of those laws that might change.
We currently believe the speed of light to be an absolute. We didn't always believe that, and we might not in the future. The cool thing about science is that we're not locked into anything that future experimentation and discovery gets us.
Oh snap! As always, you've cut to the crux of the matter.
Cigar and pipe smokers have never bothered me, no more than someone with a hookah bothers me. That said, with what we know now, anyone who willingly puts cigarettes in their mouth and lights them on fire is a dolt or an addict in need of help. Smart people can do stupid things. Do enough stupid things, and you're not smart....but it's a big world, and there's always special snowflakes.
All the "benefit" of smoking, the rush, the euphoria, pretty much ends after the first pack.
Now they're just nicotine junkies trying to get well.
How many people actually start smoking at the age of 18 or later? I'd be willing to bet its a smaller fraction than the number of people who start smoking in high school.
I suspect most start earlier. I also suspect fewer and fewer children would start if their older peers and role models didn't smoke, and I think a trickle-down effect would occur.
I have no doubt there'd be a thriving underground of "hardcore" cool kids making sure that it was still attractive to some young people.
Smoking is already on the decline; the "cool kids" are losing.
And it's not always a matter of intelligence or education.
Nope, there are exceptions. There are still weak-willed "smart" people who smoke.
...and they enjoy doing it for one reason or another.
No smoker actually enjoys it after a while. Whatever.
But outright prohibition has never worked, and will never work. It just raises the "cool factor" because you're a rebel if you flout the law.
Disagree. I think it won't work, in that people will always smoke, and that it won't have 100% of people not smoking, but I do believe it'd work, in that it'd vastly reduce the number of smokers.
A smoking prohibition with a phased exit from the market by not allowing any more 18 year olds this year, or 19 year olds next year (and so on), unlike say, an alcohol prohibition would only leave a small minority even wishing they could smoke.
Just no new smokers.
Nobody wants to keep smoking, and if they do, they're retarded.
I'm happy to let the retarded engage in a secret underground of cigarettes.
It runs against my larger political belief system, but living in a world of absolutes is dumber than smoking cigarettes.
Until then, I'll use them as a remote IQ detection mechanism.
What they *should* do is just get it over with already.
Either ban them completely or stop restricting them at all.
I enjoy knowing that smokers exist, in that it's a quick IQ test for me. I despise what cigarette companies do (sell death), but I respect people's freedom to kill themselves slowly while enjoying nicotine and menthol.
The big "L" on my voter's card says, let them kill themselves. Whee!...but I'd prefer they stop raising the "You must be born on or under this date" day. Tomorrow it can be 18y1d, until the last legal smoker dies -- just like wearing helmets in the NHL.
Silly internal conflicts with principle and reality.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
There are needs for regulatory agencies, of course, in that even in the land of the free, we'd happily fish to extinction if it meant better Q3 profits, but the idea that we need a nanny to tell us not to do heroin or get a tattoo before we're 18 is nonsense.
I'm sure the new heroin and handjobs store next to the Circle-K will have to meet proper zoning requirements - but that doesn't stop me from managing my body, my self.
As a renter, you can put up an antenna as long as you've got a point of exclusive access -- a window or balcony. If you're in a coffin somewhere, YMMV.
If your landlord tells you otherwise, they're lying.
Each person does not rent their own antenna, except by a very narrow definition.
There is a pool of antennas roughly larger than their maximum concurrent usage numbers. When you turn on NBC, a tuner is taken out of the pool and assigned to you for your temporary exclusive use. Later when you stop watching NBC, a different user may start watching NBC and get the same physical antenna that you previously used.
Your antenna is exclusive to you when you're actually watching something - when you're not, it's in a pool.
While I'm not entirely sure I'm the market for these, they can fit a useful niche -- not keeping your phone on the table in front of you all the time, opening the screen for notifications.
I certainly advocate just getting fewer notifications [IDNGAF that you posted a new picture of your lunch to twittergram], but there are notifications that I want, and that I'd like to see without "risking" my phone out constantly. Also, with things like Google Now getting more and more useful (if you buy into the Google ecosystem), if my watch can support it, it'd be worth considering.
I was fascinated by the idea of Spore when it was in development, and not so much when it was released.
Replays might be more interesting, but you're going to have to make a game pretty damned good for me to want to reply it -- and you're going to have to hope that the procedural generation the second time around makes for an interesting game.
If I play it once, I can't tell the difference between on-the-fly generation and static worlds.
...the page there is interesting, in that it exists to diffuse the real problem that it is an MMORPG, where the highest level players can kill low level players with impunity. There's zero reason to start editing Wikipedia articles now, since a high level editor will just revert your changes until you submit, and then publish them as his own, further raising his status while destroying noobs...
...I'll spare you the trouble of the finding anything made from it.
It'll sound like a bunch of random notes. If the coders were thoughtful enough, they'd have taken simple common strings and made them correspond to notes in a chord, but beyond that it'd be atonal garbage with occasional breaks for My Dog Has Fleas.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hubris.
If we're still around four million years from now, we'll look back us 2014 the same we we look at cavemen.
I should note that we're going to triple that 150k in a few years with another solar probe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Well, we went from 5pmh to 5pmh in the first 4 million years. :)
In the last couple hundred, we went from 5pmh to almost 150,000mph.
From the 10^0 range to the 10^4th range, and most of that is in the last 50.
Parsing English is teh hard.
The "they" in that sentence refers to the two nouns preceding it.
1. The new-found pair [of black holes].
2. Earth
They're 450 LY apart.
It's our understanding of those laws that might change.
We currently believe the speed of light to be an absolute. We didn't always believe that, and we might not in the future. The cool thing about science is that we're not locked into anything that future experimentation and discovery gets us.
Oh snap! As always, you've cut to the crux of the matter.
Cigar and pipe smokers have never bothered me, no more than someone with a hookah bothers me. That said, with what we know now, anyone who willingly puts cigarettes in their mouth and lights them on fire is a dolt or an addict in need of help. Smart people can do stupid things. Do enough stupid things, and you're not smart. ...but it's a big world, and there's always special snowflakes.
All the "benefit" of smoking, the rush, the euphoria, pretty much ends after the first pack.
Now they're just nicotine junkies trying to get well.
How many people actually start smoking at the age of 18 or later? I'd be willing to bet its a smaller fraction than the number of people who start smoking in high school.
I suspect most start earlier. I also suspect fewer and fewer children would start if their older peers and role models didn't smoke, and I think a trickle-down effect would occur.
I have no doubt there'd be a thriving underground of "hardcore" cool kids making sure that it was still attractive to some young people.
Smoking is already on the decline; the "cool kids" are losing.
And it's not always a matter of intelligence or education.
Nope, there are exceptions. There are still weak-willed "smart" people who smoke.
...and they enjoy doing it for one reason or another.
No smoker actually enjoys it after a while. Whatever.
But outright prohibition has never worked, and will never work. It just raises the "cool factor" because you're a rebel if you flout the law.
Disagree. I think it won't work, in that people will always smoke, and that it won't have 100% of people not smoking, but I do believe it'd work, in that it'd vastly reduce the number of smokers.
A smoking prohibition with a phased exit from the market by not allowing any more 18 year olds this year, or 19 year olds next year (and so on), unlike say, an alcohol prohibition would only leave a small minority even wishing they could smoke.
Just no new smokers.
Nobody wants to keep smoking, and if they do, they're retarded.
I'm happy to let the retarded engage in a secret underground of cigarettes.
It runs against my larger political belief system, but living in a world of absolutes is dumber than smoking cigarettes.
Until then, I'll use them as a remote IQ detection mechanism.
What they *should* do is just get it over with already.
Either ban them completely or stop restricting them at all.
I enjoy knowing that smokers exist, in that it's a quick IQ test for me. I despise what cigarette companies do (sell death), but I respect people's freedom to kill themselves slowly while enjoying nicotine and menthol.
The big "L" on my voter's card says, let them kill themselves. Whee! ...but I'd prefer they stop raising the "You must be born on or under this date" day. Tomorrow it can be 18y1d, until the last legal smoker dies -- just like wearing helmets in the NHL.
Silly internal conflicts with principle and reality.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
If he's not, I am.
There are needs for regulatory agencies, of course, in that even in the land of the free, we'd happily fish to extinction if it meant better Q3 profits, but the idea that we need a nanny to tell us not to do heroin or get a tattoo before we're 18 is nonsense.
I'm sure the new heroin and handjobs store next to the Circle-K will have to meet proper zoning requirements - but that doesn't stop me from managing my body, my self.
I have a feeding tube, you insensitive clod.
This is, essentially, the crux of the issue - are encrypted records and passwords the analog of combination locks on safes?
The likelihood of me visiting a few billion star systems, in any play-through, seems unlikely.
You can't expect posters to read the "plain English" headnote of the SCOTUS opinion before addressing the most basic points of it, can you?
Antennas aren't 1:1
You get exclusive use of an individual antenna while watching TV, but it belongs to a shared pool.
As a renter, you can put up an antenna as long as you've got a point of exclusive access -- a window or balcony. If you're in a coffin somewhere, YMMV.
If your landlord tells you otherwise, they're lying.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over...
Your cable company has an agreement, which they pay for, and pass that cost along to you -- so, uh, yes.
Each person does not rent their own antenna, except by a very narrow definition.
There is a pool of antennas roughly larger than their maximum concurrent usage numbers. When you turn on NBC, a tuner is taken out of the pool and assigned to you for your temporary exclusive use. Later when you stop watching NBC, a different user may start watching NBC and get the same physical antenna that you previously used.
Your antenna is exclusive to you when you're actually watching something - when you're not, it's in a pool.
While I'm not entirely sure I'm the market for these, they can fit a useful niche -- not keeping your phone on the table in front of you all the time, opening the screen for notifications.
I certainly advocate just getting fewer notifications [IDNGAF that you posted a new picture of your lunch to twittergram], but there are notifications that I want, and that I'd like to see without "risking" my phone out constantly. Also, with things like Google Now getting more and more useful (if you buy into the Google ecosystem), if my watch can support it, it'd be worth considering.
I just want to keep my phone in my pocket or bag.
I was fascinated by the idea of Spore when it was in development, and not so much when it was released.
Replays might be more interesting, but you're going to have to make a game pretty damned good for me to want to reply it -- and you're going to have to hope that the procedural generation the second time around makes for an interesting game.
If I play it once, I can't tell the difference between on-the-fly generation and static worlds.
This is /.
Cue the NSA muh freedoms! posts.
Clearly the GPS can be turned on by any TLA that wants to track you. The slider is a placebo.
Free beer tomorrow!
I laugh at people like you when I drive by in my Leaf in the car pool lane.
Wikipedia is a MMORPG where the guy with most free time always wins. Anybody who takes it seriously is a victim of either ignorance or zeal.
Well, duh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
...I'll spare you the trouble of the finding anything made from it.
It'll sound like a bunch of random notes. If the coders were thoughtful enough, they'd have taken simple common strings and made them correspond to notes in a chord, but beyond that it'd be atonal garbage with occasional breaks for My Dog Has Fleas.