Maybe, but the gravity is also the only force which works beyond subatomic distances.
Electromagnetism is not short-range. It only seems like it is normally because most materials are electrically neutral.
It's effect is also additive so enough electrons held together would eventually be massive enough to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion (just like protons).
Yes, it's being additive which is why gravity dominates the large-scale structure of the universe (not accounting for dark energy). Electromagnetism likes to cancel out, while gravity likes to build and build.
Weather it's actually possible to condense a cloud of electrons in order for them to exhibit a strong enough gravitational pull, I have no idea.
I don't think so, since the cloud wouldn't exist in the first place. It would disperse long before there was anything like a 'cloud'.
However if you started with something else, like a cloud of hydrogen gas, that could condense, eventually creating a situation where gravity has overcome the electron's repulsion. Something like what our sun will become.
These kinds of objects don't make good dark matter candidates. At least for the majority of the unseen mass, and the observations supporting its existence.
Why does the attractiveness to Higgs make gravity pull as hard as it does?
Because that attractiveness which grants intrinsic mass via the Higgs Effect is a form of energy, the amount of which is directly proportional to the granted intrinsic mass. The amount that space is warped is proportional to the energy in the system.
Ergo, however much intrinsic mass the Higgs Effect grants it also creates a proportional amount of gravity.
That's it. Let me know where I lost you.
Yours is no different from the antropic principle that genuine scientists have considered and discarded and decided to make extremely clever devices to see if gravitational mass and inertial mass are *precisely* 1:1. If it were definitional, they would not have bothered.
The equivalence principle is technically a postulate of General Relativity, not a definition. But either way -- only in mathematics and the minds of/.ers on the losing side of an argument do "by assumption" or "by definition" mean there is no reason to question the claimed fact any further.
Of course "geuine scientists" investigate whether the assumptions -- and consequences -- of General Relativity are true. And they know that finding that inertial and gravitational masses are different would mean knocking out one of the fundamental assumptions of GR -- that in a GR universe, the fact that the Higgs mechanisms along with any other energetic mechanism creates a proportional amount of gravity is not a mystery at all, it falls from the postulates. No need for the Anthropic Principle at all.
If they don't precisely equate, then we may just have a fluke of nature (maybe by only universes with these figures CLOSE to 1:1 is the only way to make a universe that will last long enough to be noticed as existing, much like the only way planets can orbit is if we have three and only three accessible space dimensions)
Now who's appealing to the Anthropic Principle? Not that this is bad. Contrary to what you said, the Anthropic Principle hasn't been discarded per se, it's just considered an unsatisfying answer if any other explanations can be found. It just makes a useful fall-back for things like the Fine Tuning problem. Meanwhile people search for a deeper answer than "because otherwise we wouldn't be here".
If they do precisely equate, then there must be an Ur-mechanism that drives both and we only see the effects as separate mechanisms because we're looking at them differently
Not true in a Relativistic universe. Gravity is a separate mechanism from other fields, but arises as a result of the energy in those fields. Gravitational theory itself is sufficient to explain why something like the Higgs Effect would always produce exactly the correct amount of gravity.
Of course that theory could be wrong, which is why scientists continue to poke at it. But within the framework of that theory, it is no mystery at all.
By the way, you seem to be confused about something, and maybe this will help: "Intrinsic" and "inertial" mass aren't the same thing. The Higgs field does not impart "inertial" mass, it imparts "intrinsic" mass. Intrinsic mass is the mass/energy an object has when it is not moving.
The inertial mass also scales with the total energy in the system, of which Higgs energy/intrinsic mass is just one component. If this wasn't so, then inertial and gravitational mass would diverge in a measureable way.
If it turns out that a mass's resistance to acceleration is a scalar field effect (one of the possible Higgs-boson mass models), it seems to me that gravity got a whole lot more complicated since it has to interact with particles the same relative way to yield exactly the same equivalent mass.
Not really? In General Relativity, energy and mass are the same thing, and mass/energy is the source of gravity. Matter (as in particles with intrinsic mass) is one form of mass/energy, but is actually not special at all in terms of our current understanding of gravity. Photons have zero intrinsic mass, but still have gravity due to their energy.
So if a particle's intrinsic mass is the result of its potential wrt the Higgs Field, then that will also create gravity in direct proportion to the Higgs potential. And voila, you get the correct gravity without GR having to know anything about the Higgs Field or care why protons but not photons couple to it.
This only complicates gravity if you assume gravitational and inertial mass aren't the same and then want to explain why they always appear to have the same value.
Consider that people once thought that by applying a constant force, you could accelerate arbitrarily "fast", but the universe didn't turn out to work that way.
People once thought that gravitational and inertial masses might not be the same thing because there was no particular reason to assume they were, and it could just be a coincidence that all empirical measurements said they were.
Then GR came along and gave a very strong theoretical reason for why they should be the same thing, and those reasons had experimental implications that were subsequently born out.
It's possible that whatever supplants GR will do away with this equivalence, but the appeal to "well we thought things differently in the past" is a weak argument for suspecting that it will.
Personally, I think that just like Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy readily survived the transition from a Newtonian to Einstenian universe, the General Principle of Relativity will survive whatever supplants the General Theory of Relativity.
Don't they think before they hand out things like radiation immunity to something that wants our cheese?
Of course they think! Specifically, they thought the mouse overlords might pay them better than they are now if they got in on the ground floor of the mouse revolution.
Well, we've known for a while that a lot of cases of acute radiation poisoning in humans don't actually directly damage tissues as badly as you'd think, and the problem comes from our cells' natural suicide response to damage. Normally a really good thing for preventing cancer, but not a good thing when, say, a significant number of liver cells are simultaneously slightly damaged and they each decide to kill themselves "for the good of the whole". Oops. So disabling this response allows people to survive radiation doses that previously would have killed them.
And of course radiation and life are not exclusive... without background radiation, evolution would occur on a vastly slower rate.
Hey, don't know why it took so long for me to see this response, but you raise some points I have to address.
assuming this is true, so what? conscious choice, unconscious choice, it's all still a product of nature. nature created our conscious choice
So don't dismiss human agency, and abdicate responsibility for your ability to choose, just because it's a "product of nature"! You said that polluted overpopulated cities are "just what happens" as a result of our DNA. That's simply untrue. Genetically modern humans didn't build cities for far longer than we have. What happens when you ask DNA to make humans is you get an animal capable of thinking, reasoning, and choosing. The consequence is culture which can fundamentally change how we live our lives far faster than genes can. We chose to build cities like we do, we can choose to do it differently, or not at all. "Oh [the current state of things] is just what happens because of our DNA" is a completely BS way to dismiss our agency.
a lizard regrows its tail, you say it's natural. man replaces his limbs with prosthetics or walking aids like crutches and canes and you say it's artificial. bullshit.
Yes, using the definition of "natural" meaning "not man-made" and while it's not the only definition it is a correct one no matter what you say. And it's also useful -- unless you think there's no meaningful distinction between a natural and artificial heart. Not in some philisophical "both exist due to the laws of nature" way, but a practical sense.
I'm not sure what your objection to this definition is, though I'm betting it has to do with the judgemental connotations that can be applied to it. Like the "natural is better" neo-hippie nonsense, or the "artificial is better" industrialist nonsense that had mothers preferring formula.
i'll tell you what's unnatural: that which is impossible.
Yes, yes, that's the sense of "natural" where it means "not super-natural or against the laws of physics". Which is a valid definition like I already said. Just not a terribly useful one outside of philisophical arguments and ghost shows. Get rid of the problematic word and your statement becomes: "Humans exist".
Hm. Insightful. Hadn't thought about that before.:P
We are the only species we know for sure can (and has) changed our behavior specifically because of conscious consideration for the large-scale and long-term effects of what we were doing before.
The portion i quoted from you is just plain false. here's one example that is easy to find if you're looking for it
A bird that responds instinctively to the changing temperature... responds earlier in the year when the temperature changes earlier? You think that proves anything? If you wanted to go the avian route you should have pulled out African Grey Parrots or pretty much any corvid, and frankly I'm a little offended you neglected these awesome creatures.
Because my point wasn't that no non-human animal is capable of conscious consideration of hypothetical distant futures. We can't tell what crows are saying, so it's really hard to tell if they can. Yet we are constantly learning more about how amazingly smart they are. There's evidence that they can recognize the faces of people that they haven't even seen before but other crows have. So it's probably just due to our own ignorance when I say "we don't know for sure", but nevertheless that's completely true.
We only know humans can. My wording wasn't an accident. We should use our ability to reason and consider the future. Yes we're an animal like the crows are animals, unique at best in degree, but that doesn't mean our actions are out of our hands, nor that the future is a foregone conclusion.
if another earth-like planet is evolving humans on it (i.e. all things bein
Man, k5 already made me hate the word "meta" with a passion. Or rather more. You just flat out call it what it is like that, I'm not dumb enough to look.
This just in: Phrases mean different things in different contexts. Learn more in our in-depth report, "Natural languages sure are confusing, aren't they?"
Guess again after reading the summary, which states that while the conventional wisdom on the difficulty of hitting knuckleballs is wrong, there still is a reason why they're harder to hit.
Much the same way as forest fires occurred long before humans arrived; thus it is the height of folly to suggest that humans could cause something like a forest fire.
Excellent point. I hope you don't mind but I'm definitely going to use that next time.
I saw him on the news last night talking about this; he's balding but not bald, doesn't have an eyepatch, and there was no white Persian cat anywhere to be seen. Either the "Elon Musk" they put in front of cameras is a clever decoy, or he's not actually up to any world-domination schemes at all. Which doesn't make any sense.
Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well.
That concept (realized via a Pegasus rocket) put NuSTAR in orbit, so it may not scale well, but it's enough to be useful.
Rockets in general don't scale well (which is why you quickly get one much too big to be carried by a plane). That's why what SpaceX is doing -- attacking the cost of launches to earth orbit -- is so important. Once that's a relatively cheap commodity, we can use earth orbit as the launching point to the rest of the solar system.
See, this is why conditional probability is important. The odds are conditional on what you know. Odds a random human has a uterus? 50%. Odds a random human has a uterus given that they are a male? 15%
They can't just slap a single probability on a type of crime like this. There are so many varying factors in getting caught, intelligence being a huge game changer.
Of course you can, just like you can slap a single probability on the chances of getting cancer, even though there are many factors that affect and even dominate an individual's chances.
That's the way statistics work. They tell you the average, but any individual trial (whether in the sense of a bank robber's take or a roll of the dice) may fall far outside of the average.
Of course when talking human behavior you the individual have control over some of the factors so you shouldn't just go with the statistics like you would at Vegas. Which is what most criminals seeing this statistic will do -- tell themselves that they are above average and can make bank robbery pay off. Of course they aren't going to get caught. They're too smart.
And then 20% of them do and become another statistic.
that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being
Just for the sake of accuracy -- Slaves were whole "persons" according to the Constitution, but it was only 3/5ths of their number that counted for determining a state's representation in the House.
The slave states wanted the full number of their slaves to count, because it would increase their influence in the federal government. It was non-slave states and abolitionists who argued against this, and reducing it to 3/5ths was the compromise.
So you see, it's not counting slaves as less than a full human being (which wasn't what they were doing) that is the problem with the 3/5ths clause. It's that people who were slaves and thus not represented by their government were being counted towards representation at all. It's not that it's less than 1, it's that it's greater than 0!
Just wanted to put that into perspective. It's kinda messed up that we had to make compromises like that just to form our nation. But you know, the Founder's reasoning about freedom and liberty were quite good. The only problem was that they didn't extend the concepts to everyone, which is a problem easily fixed -- logically, anyway.
'Course not. I'm wondering why bother with the lies when what he actually did was pretty cool anyway? It's not like he has any chance of getting royalties or anything.
Really? You didn't say that "the climate is always changing" is the hypothesis scientists should focus on knocking down if they want to confirm the AGW hypothesis? Because it sure sounded like you were saying that. What does what you said even mean, if not that? Why bring up the "always changing" thing as if it's something climatologists would ever disagree with and want to 'knock down'?
Makes my dog angry too since she can't nap there anymore, and she doesn't even have inalienable human rights. Where's the canine rights?!
On the other hand, the drones are usually pretty warm so the cat loves them. The drones act like they don't like it and complain that the cat is making them late for their patrol, but when I suggest they could make the cat move they always say "But she's sleeping! D'aawww."
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this on a public forum, but the drones' weakness for Teh Kittehs seems like a major weakness to me. I don't know why they programmed them that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Michigan is enormous.
Born n' raised in Michigan, living in Texas.
MI is a lot of things, but enormous it ain't.
Maybe, but the gravity is also the only force which works beyond subatomic distances.
Electromagnetism is not short-range. It only seems like it is normally because most materials are electrically neutral.
It's effect is also additive so enough electrons held together would eventually be massive enough to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion (just like protons).
Yes, it's being additive which is why gravity dominates the large-scale structure of the universe (not accounting for dark energy). Electromagnetism likes to cancel out, while gravity likes to build and build.
Weather it's actually possible to condense a cloud of electrons in order for them to exhibit a strong enough gravitational pull, I have no idea.
I don't think so, since the cloud wouldn't exist in the first place. It would disperse long before there was anything like a 'cloud'.
However if you started with something else, like a cloud of hydrogen gas, that could condense, eventually creating a situation where gravity has overcome the electron's repulsion. Something like what our sun will become.
These kinds of objects don't make good dark matter candidates. At least for the majority of the unseen mass, and the observations supporting its existence.
MAXIMUM CHILD HARM
Sounds awesome! When is it going to be released? What consoles will it com out on?
Why does the attractiveness to Higgs make gravity pull as hard as it does?
Because that attractiveness which grants intrinsic mass via the Higgs Effect is a form of energy, the amount of which is directly proportional to the granted intrinsic mass. The amount that space is warped is proportional to the energy in the system.
Ergo, however much intrinsic mass the Higgs Effect grants it also creates a proportional amount of gravity.
That's it. Let me know where I lost you.
Yours is no different from the antropic principle that genuine scientists have considered and discarded and decided to make extremely clever devices to see if gravitational mass and inertial mass are *precisely* 1:1. If it were definitional, they would not have bothered.
The equivalence principle is technically a postulate of General Relativity, not a definition. But either way -- only in mathematics and the minds of /.ers on the losing side of an argument do "by assumption" or "by definition" mean there is no reason to question the claimed fact any further.
Of course "geuine scientists" investigate whether the assumptions -- and consequences -- of General Relativity are true. And they know that finding that inertial and gravitational masses are different would mean knocking out one of the fundamental assumptions of GR -- that in a GR universe, the fact that the Higgs mechanisms along with any other energetic mechanism creates a proportional amount of gravity is not a mystery at all, it falls from the postulates. No need for the Anthropic Principle at all.
If they don't precisely equate, then we may just have a fluke of nature (maybe by only universes with these figures CLOSE to 1:1 is the only way to make a universe that will last long enough to be noticed as existing, much like the only way planets can orbit is if we have three and only three accessible space dimensions)
Now who's appealing to the Anthropic Principle? Not that this is bad. Contrary to what you said, the Anthropic Principle hasn't been discarded per se, it's just considered an unsatisfying answer if any other explanations can be found. It just makes a useful fall-back for things like the Fine Tuning problem. Meanwhile people search for a deeper answer than "because otherwise we wouldn't be here".
If they do precisely equate, then there must be an Ur-mechanism that drives both and we only see the effects as separate mechanisms because we're looking at them differently
Not true in a Relativistic universe. Gravity is a separate mechanism from other fields, but arises as a result of the energy in those fields. Gravitational theory itself is sufficient to explain why something like the Higgs Effect would always produce exactly the correct amount of gravity.
Of course that theory could be wrong, which is why scientists continue to poke at it. But within the framework of that theory, it is no mystery at all.
By the way, you seem to be confused about something, and maybe this will help: "Intrinsic" and "inertial" mass aren't the same thing. The Higgs field does not impart "inertial" mass, it imparts "intrinsic" mass. Intrinsic mass is the mass/energy an object has when it is not moving.
The inertial mass also scales with the total energy in the system, of which Higgs energy/intrinsic mass is just one component. If this wasn't so, then inertial and gravitational mass would diverge in a measureable way.
I think those would be Weapons of Mass Creation.
And upset the fundies?!
As Shakespeare didn't once say: "What's in a name? Potentially a few $Billion of DOD funding."
If it turns out that a mass's resistance to acceleration is a scalar field effect (one of the possible Higgs-boson mass models), it seems to me that gravity got a whole lot more complicated since it has to interact with particles the same relative way to yield exactly the same equivalent mass.
Not really? In General Relativity, energy and mass are the same thing, and mass/energy is the source of gravity. Matter (as in particles with intrinsic mass) is one form of mass/energy, but is actually not special at all in terms of our current understanding of gravity. Photons have zero intrinsic mass, but still have gravity due to their energy.
So if a particle's intrinsic mass is the result of its potential wrt the Higgs Field, then that will also create gravity in direct proportion to the Higgs potential. And voila, you get the correct gravity without GR having to know anything about the Higgs Field or care why protons but not photons couple to it.
This only complicates gravity if you assume gravitational and inertial mass aren't the same and then want to explain why they always appear to have the same value.
Consider that people once thought that by applying a constant force, you could accelerate arbitrarily "fast", but the universe didn't turn out to work that way.
People once thought that gravitational and inertial masses might not be the same thing because there was no particular reason to assume they were, and it could just be a coincidence that all empirical measurements said they were.
Then GR came along and gave a very strong theoretical reason for why they should be the same thing, and those reasons had experimental implications that were subsequently born out.
It's possible that whatever supplants GR will do away with this equivalence, but the appeal to "well we thought things differently in the past" is a weak argument for suspecting that it will.
Personally, I think that just like Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy readily survived the transition from a Newtonian to Einstenian universe, the General Principle of Relativity will survive whatever supplants the General Theory of Relativity.
Don't they think before they hand out things like radiation immunity to something that wants our cheese?
Of course they think! Specifically, they thought the mouse overlords might pay them better than they are now if they got in on the ground floor of the mouse revolution.
Well, we've known for a while that a lot of cases of acute radiation poisoning in humans don't actually directly damage tissues as badly as you'd think, and the problem comes from our cells' natural suicide response to damage. Normally a really good thing for preventing cancer, but not a good thing when, say, a significant number of liver cells are simultaneously slightly damaged and they each decide to kill themselves "for the good of the whole". Oops. So disabling this response allows people to survive radiation doses that previously would have killed them.
And of course radiation and life are not exclusive... without background radiation, evolution would occur on a vastly slower rate.
Hey, don't know why it took so long for me to see this response, but you raise some points I have to address.
assuming this is true, so what? conscious choice, unconscious choice, it's all still a product of nature. nature created our conscious choice
So don't dismiss human agency, and abdicate responsibility for your ability to choose, just because it's a "product of nature"! You said that polluted overpopulated cities are "just what happens" as a result of our DNA. That's simply untrue. Genetically modern humans didn't build cities for far longer than we have. What happens when you ask DNA to make humans is you get an animal capable of thinking, reasoning, and choosing. The consequence is culture which can fundamentally change how we live our lives far faster than genes can. We chose to build cities like we do, we can choose to do it differently, or not at all. "Oh [the current state of things] is just what happens because of our DNA" is a completely BS way to dismiss our agency.
a lizard regrows its tail, you say it's natural. man replaces his limbs with prosthetics or walking aids like crutches and canes and you say it's artificial. bullshit.
Yes, using the definition of "natural" meaning "not man-made" and while it's not the only definition it is a correct one no matter what you say. And it's also useful -- unless you think there's no meaningful distinction between a natural and artificial heart. Not in some philisophical "both exist due to the laws of nature" way, but a practical sense.
I'm not sure what your objection to this definition is, though I'm betting it has to do with the judgemental connotations that can be applied to it. Like the "natural is better" neo-hippie nonsense, or the "artificial is better" industrialist nonsense that had mothers preferring formula.
i'll tell you what's unnatural: that which is impossible.
Yes, yes, that's the sense of "natural" where it means "not super-natural or against the laws of physics". Which is a valid definition like I already said. Just not a terribly useful one outside of philisophical arguments and ghost shows. Get rid of the problematic word and your statement becomes: "Humans exist".
Hm. Insightful. Hadn't thought about that before. :P
We are the only species we know for sure can (and has) changed our behavior specifically because of conscious consideration for the large-scale and long-term effects of what we were doing before.
The portion i quoted from you is just plain false. here's one example that is easy to find if you're looking for it
A bird that responds instinctively to the changing temperature... responds earlier in the year when the temperature changes earlier? You think that proves anything? If you wanted to go the avian route you should have pulled out African Grey Parrots or pretty much any corvid, and frankly I'm a little offended you neglected these awesome creatures.
Because my point wasn't that no non-human animal is capable of conscious consideration of hypothetical distant futures. We can't tell what crows are saying, so it's really hard to tell if they can. Yet we are constantly learning more about how amazingly smart they are. There's evidence that they can recognize the faces of people that they haven't even seen before but other crows have. So it's probably just due to our own ignorance when I say "we don't know for sure", but nevertheless that's completely true.
We only know humans can. My wording wasn't an accident. We should use our ability to reason and consider the future. Yes we're an animal like the crows are animals, unique at best in degree, but that doesn't mean our actions are out of our hands, nor that the future is a foregone conclusion.
if another earth-like planet is evolving humans on it (i.e. all things bein
It is pretty awesome what we're learning from Kepler, isn't it?
Been to r/circlejerk, lately? :)
Man, k5 already made me hate the word "meta" with a passion. Or rather more. You just flat out call it what it is like that, I'm not dumb enough to look.
You can whine about anything you want no matter how invalid the complaint is, and have demonstrably done so. Why would you think I'm saying otherwise?
Should, on the other hand...
This just in: Phrases mean different things in different contexts. Learn more in our in-depth report, "Natural languages sure are confusing, aren't they?"
Guess again after reading the summary, which states that while the conventional wisdom on the difficulty of hitting knuckleballs is wrong, there still is a reason why they're harder to hit.
Hold on, let me check my notes.
Much the same way as forest fires occurred long before humans arrived; thus it is the height of folly to suggest that humans could cause something like a forest fire.
Excellent point. I hope you don't mind but I'm definitely going to use that next time.
I saw him on the news last night talking about this; he's balding but not bald, doesn't have an eyepatch, and there was no white Persian cat anywhere to be seen. Either the "Elon Musk" they put in front of cameras is a clever decoy, or he's not actually up to any world-domination schemes at all. Which doesn't make any sense.
Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well.
That concept (realized via a Pegasus rocket) put NuSTAR in orbit, so it may not scale well, but it's enough to be useful.
Rockets in general don't scale well (which is why you quickly get one much too big to be carried by a plane). That's why what SpaceX is doing -- attacking the cost of launches to earth orbit -- is so important. Once that's a relatively cheap commodity, we can use earth orbit as the launching point to the rest of the solar system.
See, this is why conditional probability is important. The odds are conditional on what you know. Odds a random human has a uterus? 50%. Odds a random human has a uterus given that they are a male? 15%
And my beep was a beep of delight. Ain't no profanity up in here.
Feel up instead! You're clever and you deserve it. :D
I'm not sure what to make of this. All I can think of is that HapSlappy is being propositioned by a robot.
They can't just slap a single probability on a type of crime like this.
There are so many varying factors in getting caught, intelligence being a huge game changer.
Of course you can, just like you can slap a single probability on the chances of getting cancer, even though there are many factors that affect and even dominate an individual's chances.
That's the way statistics work. They tell you the average, but any individual trial (whether in the sense of a bank robber's take or a roll of the dice) may fall far outside of the average.
Of course when talking human behavior you the individual have control over some of the factors so you shouldn't just go with the statistics like you would at Vegas. Which is what most criminals seeing this statistic will do -- tell themselves that they are above average and can make bank robbery pay off. Of course they aren't going to get caught. They're too smart.
And then 20% of them do and become another statistic.
that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being
Just for the sake of accuracy -- Slaves were whole "persons" according to the Constitution, but it was only 3/5ths of their number that counted for determining a state's representation in the House.
The slave states wanted the full number of their slaves to count, because it would increase their influence in the federal government. It was non-slave states and abolitionists who argued against this, and reducing it to 3/5ths was the compromise.
So you see, it's not counting slaves as less than a full human being (which wasn't what they were doing) that is the problem with the 3/5ths clause. It's that people who were slaves and thus not represented by their government were being counted towards representation at all. It's not that it's less than 1, it's that it's greater than 0!
Just wanted to put that into perspective. It's kinda messed up that we had to make compromises like that just to form our nation. But you know, the Founder's reasoning about freedom and liberty were quite good. The only problem was that they didn't extend the concepts to everyone, which is a problem easily fixed -- logically, anyway.
'Course not. I'm wondering why bother with the lies when what he actually did was pretty cool anyway? It's not like he has any chance of getting royalties or anything.
Really? You didn't say that "the climate is always changing" is the hypothesis scientists should focus on knocking down if they want to confirm the AGW hypothesis? Because it sure sounded like you were saying that. What does what you said even mean, if not that? Why bring up the "always changing" thing as if it's something climatologists would ever disagree with and want to 'knock down'?
Makes my dog angry too since she can't nap there anymore, and she doesn't even have inalienable human rights. Where's the canine rights?!
On the other hand, the drones are usually pretty warm so the cat loves them. The drones act like they don't like it and complain that the cat is making them late for their patrol, but when I suggest they could make the cat move they always say "But she's sleeping! D'aawww."
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this on a public forum, but the drones' weakness for Teh Kittehs seems like a major weakness to me. I don't know why they programmed them that way.