If I remember the First Commandment aright, it's about having no deity but God or something like that. That doesn't imply that religion has to be incorporated into government. A person who worships God and has a secular government isn't violating the commandment.
After quite a few years of study and observation, I've seen absolutely no reason to change my view that mixing religion and government is bad for both.
Your quote seems to be unclear. Who was this Dr. Luke? If it was the guy who allegedly wrote one of the gospels, why the "Dr."? How could any historian verify what the gospel says as accurate, without extensive other sources? How could the gospel guy be one of the world's greatest historians based on an account of one man's life, death, and afterlife? Certainly a great historian would have set it into better context rather than just reporting some oddities.
I was cured of trusting Nobel Prize winners by Linus Pauling and his Vitamin C crusade. If you want me to trust Sir William Ramsay, provide me with the evidence, and I'll make up my own mind.
The Bayesian approach is to estimate a prior probability of UFOs before estimating the probability that UFOs exist. Now, I believe 100% that UFOs exist, but under 1% that they're alien spacecraft, so I'm going to go on thinking it's very unlikely that it's aliens unless I get some fairly strong evidence to the contrary.
The first Nigerian scam email I received mentioned that I was known to be honest and trustworthy, and therefore ideal for their illegal scheme. It amused me.
Ten percent of the speed of light is plenty fast enough for many purposes. Project Orion (nuclear bombs for thrust) was thought to possibly be able to get to that speed with a large rocket.
The practical, real technologies we use now to move mass (ie, propulsion), are *it*. There are no other ways.
So far, we've looked at chemical rockets, nuclear rockets (a NERVA), throwing nukes behind the ship and smoothing the acceleration (Project Orion) , ion drives, solar sails, laser propulsion, and probably other things I have missed. So far, the practical, real technology we use to move mass to space is chemical rockets, and as you can see there's several other ways (not all suitable for launch from Earth).
It looks pretty dubious from the Wikipedia article. The energy required to divert the protons is going to get pretty large, and proton-proton fusion is difficult. The article suggests the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen-emit alpha-carbon cycle instead, but if you have to accelerate the protons to ship speed there's going to be a top speed.
The proposals are for a probe the size of a pack of cigarettes, or even the size of a postage stamp,
Which seems senseless to me. Could such a probe even transmit anything back to Earth? Could such a probe collect interesting data in the first place? Could it serve any purpose other than crashing into a planet with a potentially hostile civilization?
One thing that struck me about Trump's campaign is its theme that things were great in the past, are lousy now, and Trump's going to fix it. "Make America Great Again" makes sense only if America is not currently great.
When were tax raises supposed to be expected to be followed by spending cuts? I know of tax cuts that were supposed to be followed by spending cuts, but neither party is interested in spending cuts (except the current Republicans, who are interested in spending cuts on things that affect the non-rich).
There were stories of a donation to the Clinton Foundation that were alleged to be connected to her agreeing with five other government officials that it was OK to go ahead with the sale. The Clinton Foundation is a bona fide charitable organization, so I don't see where the profit would come in.
Selling a company in another nation 20% share in a Canadian company doesn't violate our best interests, and that's what she and the others approved. She didn't approve any transfer of uranium to Russia. If Russia was able to get the uranium by owning a share of the company, they could have gotten it by buying it directly.
Ah, you have some real knowledge about this? Great! What would be a better technological way for Apple to handle battery degradation? You appear to have left that out of your posting, in favor of speculation about Apple's motives.
That said, it does seem to me that what Apple has done here clearly and flagrantly violates several significant Federal laws around antitrust and warranty issues
Would you like to tell me what these laws are? What should Apple have done to stay legal? Allowed phones to crash? Shipped unicorn-ion batteries that don't degrade? Put a "crash your phone when it's busy" option in the Settings?
I haven't heard of Apple doing anything to stop iFixit from selling battery replacement kits, so I have no idea why you're mentioning anti-trust.
Because batteries grow on trees, and the tree for your particular phone grows near your house? Because it's all done by little battery fairies who live on sunshine and rainbows? No, I don't know why you'd have to pay anything.
Because nobody knows when the crash will come, and shorting stuff is dangerous. Unless you can hedge your bet, you can lose an unlimited amount of money shorting.
Slashdot Mirror
My voices told me that your therapist is really a barista in a witness protection program, so I don't know who's real.
If I remember the First Commandment aright, it's about having no deity but God or something like that. That doesn't imply that religion has to be incorporated into government. A person who worships God and has a secular government isn't violating the commandment.
After quite a few years of study and observation, I've seen absolutely no reason to change my view that mixing religion and government is bad for both.
Your quote seems to be unclear. Who was this Dr. Luke? If it was the guy who allegedly wrote one of the gospels, why the "Dr."? How could any historian verify what the gospel says as accurate, without extensive other sources? How could the gospel guy be one of the world's greatest historians based on an account of one man's life, death, and afterlife? Certainly a great historian would have set it into better context rather than just reporting some oddities.
I was cured of trusting Nobel Prize winners by Linus Pauling and his Vitamin C crusade. If you want me to trust Sir William Ramsay, provide me with the evidence, and I'll make up my own mind.
Every year, my wife and I throw a Solstice-Related Holiday Of Your Choice party. We're not fussy.
The Bayesian approach is to estimate a prior probability of UFOs before estimating the probability that UFOs exist. Now, I believe 100% that UFOs exist, but under 1% that they're alien spacecraft, so I'm going to go on thinking it's very unlikely that it's aliens unless I get some fairly strong evidence to the contrary.
I think Stalin's mustache was much more impressive than Trump's hair, personally.
The first Nigerian scam email I received mentioned that I was known to be honest and trustworthy, and therefore ideal for their illegal scheme. It amused me.
Ten percent of the speed of light is plenty fast enough for many purposes. Project Orion (nuclear bombs for thrust) was thought to possibly be able to get to that speed with a large rocket.
So far, we've looked at chemical rockets, nuclear rockets (a NERVA), throwing nukes behind the ship and smoothing the acceleration (Project Orion) , ion drives, solar sails, laser propulsion, and probably other things I have missed. So far, the practical, real technology we use to move mass to space is chemical rockets, and as you can see there's several other ways (not all suitable for launch from Earth).
It looks pretty dubious from the Wikipedia article. The energy required to divert the protons is going to get pretty large, and proton-proton fusion is difficult. The article suggests the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen-emit alpha-carbon cycle instead, but if you have to accelerate the protons to ship speed there's going to be a top speed.
Which seems senseless to me. Could such a probe even transmit anything back to Earth? Could such a probe collect interesting data in the first place? Could it serve any purpose other than crashing into a planet with a potentially hostile civilization?
Don't forget lots of time in on Kerbal Space Program.
One thing that struck me about Trump's campaign is its theme that things were great in the past, are lousy now, and Trump's going to fix it. "Make America Great Again" makes sense only if America is not currently great.
The military was also an early adopter of more-or-less racial equality, although that's less significant nowadays.
That's why I figure Marx was half right. Good at spotting problems, terrible at coming up with working solutions.
When were tax raises supposed to be expected to be followed by spending cuts? I know of tax cuts that were supposed to be followed by spending cuts, but neither party is interested in spending cuts (except the current Republicans, who are interested in spending cuts on things that affect the non-rich).
There were stories of a donation to the Clinton Foundation that were alleged to be connected to her agreeing with five other government officials that it was OK to go ahead with the sale. The Clinton Foundation is a bona fide charitable organization, so I don't see where the profit would come in.
Selling a company in another nation 20% share in a Canadian company doesn't violate our best interests, and that's what she and the others approved. She didn't approve any transfer of uranium to Russia. If Russia was able to get the uranium by owning a share of the company, they could have gotten it by buying it directly.
Writing stuff badly - I can do that! Thanks for the encouragement.
Thank you for the additional information.
Ah, you have some real knowledge about this? Great! What would be a better technological way for Apple to handle battery degradation? You appear to have left that out of your posting, in favor of speculation about Apple's motives.
Would you like to tell me what these laws are? What should Apple have done to stay legal? Allowed phones to crash? Shipped unicorn-ion batteries that don't degrade? Put a "crash your phone when it's busy" option in the Settings?
I haven't heard of Apple doing anything to stop iFixit from selling battery replacement kits, so I have no idea why you're mentioning anti-trust.
Because batteries grow on trees, and the tree for your particular phone grows near your house? Because it's all done by little battery fairies who live on sunshine and rainbows? No, I don't know why you'd have to pay anything.
Yeah, the anti-Apple fanbois are some of the worst.
Because nobody knows when the crash will come, and shorting stuff is dangerous. Unless you can hedge your bet, you can lose an unlimited amount of money shorting.