"Mostly transparent" implies not completely transparent. In that case, the orbits of the moon and satellites would be very slightly affected when eclipsed by Earth. The affect may be too small to be measured, hidden in the noise of unknown masses and the noise of sensing equipment.
Trump has very little in common with GWB. Bush is a polite person who adhered to the Constitution within the limits of his understanding. Trump is rude and considers his opinion superior to the Constitution.
If I start a religion based on "I'll murder anyone I don't like", there's a very good reason all people claiming adherence to this religion should be denied entry to the U.S. The only significant difference between my proposed religion and Islam is that Islam is more complicated.
You think Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney were "the craziest person with the loudest voice"? All 4 were middle-of-the-road, and lost because they stood strongly for nothing and weren't so thrillingly evil as their opponents.
Public transport systems (rail) in the US failed economically, especially when they were regulated into unprofitability and seized by the government (NYC, for example). Big cities retained their systems when more or less appropriate, but small city light rail systems were absurd and couldn't even compete with buses.
What are the options? If you want to aim it quickly and have a one-piece weapon, you're limited to hand-held and head mounted. Hand held is much more versatile, and you don't want a weapon with significant recoil shaking your brain.
Much science fiction falls into the category of "how does this technology affect people" and a yarn develops therefrom. Throwing in lots of technology unnecessary to the plot and the ambience weakens the story.
In this regard, text stories differ from movies. In written media, pointing out everything that is new and different is a distraction. On film, lots of shiny gadgets add interest and atmosphere, and sometimes help the story's credibility.
Xena didn't find it too difficult to have centaurs, so it can be done.
The case for tool makers having hands they don't walk on, eyes close together near the top of the body for binocular vision, big brains near the eyes, being air dwellers, and a number of other features, is pretty strong. It isn't so much parallel evolution as it is that the species that comes out on top has to be capable of making and using complex tools, which in turn imposes its own limitations. Earth has dogs, squids, and cabbages, but people are the subject of most SF.
One story (Poul Anderson's The Man Who Counts) had a dominant species with wings, that could fly.
Organizing across party lines generally means that the most corrupt of the members of each party join forces to screw the country. Those calling loudest for cooperating with the other party are either thinking "sucker!" or they are.
There is no right to inherit, however there is a right to bequeath. Rockefeller Sr. had the right to give his property to his children. There is no "ancestral heritage".
In the Hawaiian case, there is an implication from the U.S. Constitution that should be considered. The worst crime against the government is treason, yet even in the case of treason punishment by "corruption of blood" is forbidden, which means that the children of the offender may not be punished for the offender's crime. If that applies to treason, it ought to apply to all crimes. This applies to Hawaii in that the descendants of those who conquered the island should not be punished by being subject to the whims of the descendants of those conquered.
There is more than one way for an SSD to fail. Limited writes means losing bits, which is a signal that the drive needs replacement. That's very different from "*poof* the drive is dead and everything is gone."
The apparent inconstancy of right and wrong is due to those terms being poorly defined. Part of the difficulty is failing to mention context: right or wrong in order to achieve what goal?
I would prefer quoting from a book that wasn't generated by anybody's flights of fancy, neither Moses & Peter nor Nietzsche: The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The problem is, there isn't any drama or bossiness there.
In the strict sense, an agnostic is someone who claims that knowledge of the existence (or nonexistence) of a god is impossible. Such a person neither believes nor disbelieves, because having given the subject adequate study, he has seen that he cannot know.
Alas, there are those who understand that demonstration of the existence of a god isn't possible, but who insist upon believing anyway. They say "Faith is necessary to know god." and other such nonsense.
Generally, atheism is lack of belief in a god. If you want to refer to someone who claims no god exists, use the term positive atheist.
The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?" Anyone well versed in logic who has considered the subject for a while, will be able to push the theist into a corner. God inevitably is self-contradictory (and thus does not exist) or is trivial ("This rock is God." "So what.").
But wait, it gets better. Consider the fun you can have by saying "Okay, let's assume a god exists and it's powerful enough for me to pay attention to." Then point to the many obvious evils in the world, and show that if a god allows them it must have such bad character that it's unworthy of respect.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqDFPLUhig
This implies the existence of an antigraviton. We need to create antigravitons for use by NASA.
"Mostly transparent" implies not completely transparent. In that case, the orbits of the moon and satellites would be very slightly affected when eclipsed by Earth. The affect may be too small to be measured, hidden in the noise of unknown masses and the noise of sensing equipment.
Trump has very little in common with GWB. Bush is a polite person who adhered to the Constitution within the limits of his understanding. Trump is rude and considers his opinion superior to the Constitution.
The worst thing Nixon did was end the gold standard. In the ~40 years since then, the value of the dollar has dropped by about 96%.
The best thing Nixon did was end that form of slavery known as the military draft.
If I start a religion based on "I'll murder anyone I don't like", there's a very good reason all people claiming adherence to this religion should be denied entry to the U.S. The only significant difference between my proposed religion and Islam is that Islam is more complicated.
You think Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney were "the craziest person with the loudest voice"? All 4 were middle-of-the-road, and lost because they stood strongly for nothing and weren't so thrillingly evil as their opponents.
Also in the Boston area was John Meshna Jr. in Lynn.
Public transport systems (rail) in the US failed economically, especially when they were regulated into unprofitability and seized by the government (NYC, for example). Big cities retained their systems when more or less appropriate, but small city light rail systems were absurd and couldn't even compete with buses.
In rural areas, the poor people are the ones with four vehicles parked on the lawn.
75000 rail cars per hour * 100 feet per rail car. 7,500,000 feet per hour, = 1,420 mph. Whoopie! Supersonic trains.
No steep hills where you live?
Not big at all, with room temperature superconductors.
What are the options? If you want to aim it quickly and have a one-piece weapon, you're limited to hand-held and head mounted. Hand held is much more versatile, and you don't want a weapon with significant recoil shaking your brain.
Much science fiction falls into the category of "how does this technology affect people" and a yarn develops therefrom. Throwing in lots of technology unnecessary to the plot and the ambience weakens the story.
In this regard, text stories differ from movies. In written media, pointing out everything that is new and different is a distraction. On film, lots of shiny gadgets add interest and atmosphere, and sometimes help the story's credibility.
Breech loaders date back to the 14th century. They didn't become popular until the 1800s, when improved machining made sealing the breech practical.
Xena didn't find it too difficult to have centaurs, so it can be done.
The case for tool makers having hands they don't walk on, eyes close together near the top of the body for binocular vision, big brains near the eyes, being air dwellers, and a number of other features, is pretty strong. It isn't so much parallel evolution as it is that the species that comes out on top has to be capable of making and using complex tools, which in turn imposes its own limitations. Earth has dogs, squids, and cabbages, but people are the subject of most SF.
One story (Poul Anderson's The Man Who Counts) had a dominant species with wings, that could fly.
Organizing across party lines generally means that the most corrupt of the members of each party join forces to screw the country. Those calling loudest for cooperating with the other party are either thinking "sucker!" or they are.
There is no right to inherit, however there is a right to bequeath. Rockefeller Sr. had the right to give his property to his children. There is no "ancestral heritage".
In the Hawaiian case, there is an implication from the U.S. Constitution that should be considered. The worst crime against the government is treason, yet even in the case of treason punishment by "corruption of blood" is forbidden, which means that the children of the offender may not be punished for the offender's crime. If that applies to treason, it ought to apply to all crimes. This applies to Hawaii in that the descendants of those who conquered the island should not be punished by being subject to the whims of the descendants of those conquered.
Newegg has a few SLC SSDs. An Axiom 960 GB model is $1213. Smaller capacities cost more per byte.
The cheapest MLC at that capacity is a Sandisk at $250.
There is more than one way for an SSD to fail. Limited writes means losing bits, which is a signal that the drive needs replacement. That's very different from "*poof* the drive is dead and everything is gone."
The apparent inconstancy of right and wrong is due to those terms being poorly defined. Part of the difficulty is failing to mention context: right or wrong in order to achieve what goal?
Number 1 is by necessity an empty set. The other three contain people.
I would prefer quoting from a book that wasn't generated by anybody's flights of fancy, neither Moses & Peter nor Nietzsche: The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The problem is, there isn't any drama or bossiness there.
In the strict sense, an agnostic is someone who claims that knowledge of the existence (or nonexistence) of a god is impossible. Such a person neither believes nor disbelieves, because having given the subject adequate study, he has seen that he cannot know.
Alas, there are those who understand that demonstration of the existence of a god isn't possible, but who insist upon believing anyway. They say "Faith is necessary to know god." and other such nonsense.
Generally, atheism is lack of belief in a god. If you want to refer to someone who claims no god exists, use the term positive atheist.
The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?" Anyone well versed in logic who has considered the subject for a while, will be able to push the theist into a corner. God inevitably is self-contradictory (and thus does not exist) or is trivial ("This rock is God." "So what.").
But wait, it gets better. Consider the fun you can have by saying "Okay, let's assume a god exists and it's powerful enough for me to pay attention to." Then point to the many obvious evils in the world, and show that if a god allows them it must have such bad character that it's unworthy of respect.