We honestly live in what appears to be the most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared oppressive regime in history.
I don't know about you, but I don't live in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or China, and I doubt you do either. If you did, you'd probably not be allowed to post things like that.
You're thinking of a "figure eight" orbit and from what I understand, that's not stable. However, there's another possibility: Proxima Centauri is far enough from the other two components of the system that it could have planets orbiting it only, as long as its ecliptic were properly oriented.
There was a time when I respectec Oprah. When she continued to support Frey long after the facts came out, I lost all respect for her. Her self-serving savaging of Frey has done nothing to rehabilitate her for me. From now on, her reccomendation of a book or cause not only won't make me buy or support it, it will make me suspicious of it. I wonder how many others feel the same way?
...I'd think it less likely for binary or trinary systems to have planets since more matter in the system is taken up in star mass.
That's not the only reason. It's much less likely that a planet will have a stable orbit in a multi-star system, unless one of the stars is very far from the center of gravity. Even so, the chance of ther being a stable orbit inside the star's habitable zone (For earth-like values of habitable.) are very small.
I remember reading back in the '60s, about a similar problem here in the US. Researchers gave the tests a good look and found that part of the test required children to identify drawings of various home appliences and utensils. The drawings hadn't been updated in 30 years or so, and most of the subjects had no idea what tehy were supposed to represent. As an example, the drawing of a telephone still used the old candlestick model although the french style had replaced it decades ago. As soon as they updated the drawings, the IQ drop vanished.
I doubt that a judge actually would make such a ruling, or that it wouldn't be overturned on appeal. It was intended to show how far such a precedent could be warped if an activist judge really wanted to. Considering that federal courts have claimed jurisdiction over truck-stops because their customers are engaged in interstate commerce, it's not as far out as you and I would like it to be.
That link's too tame. Now, if you really want to live on the edge, click on Schrodenger's Link. Warning, by clicking on that link you may or may not be downloading kiddy pr0n. Until you click, you won't know.
This ruling has no implications beyond child porn. As you can see it refers to laws specific to child pornography.
No direct implications, I'll agree. But laywers and judges like to reason from analogy, starting with one precedent and ending up with a decision in a seeminly unrelated case. A judge could later say that burning a pirated copy of a movie onto a DVD is equivalent to what happened here and should be treated the same. This would be a Bad Thing, and that's what people are worrying about here.
What if it's impossible to prove whether something is falsifiable or not?
If a theory makes no predictions about reality, it can't be falsified. If it does, but can explain any possible results from a test of that prediction, it can't be. If it makes predictions that can be tested and there are results possible that can't be fitted into the theory, then and only then it can be falsified.
As an example, a theory that God created the Universe in 4004 BC with sedimentary rocks containing fossiles making it look like the world was millions of years old can't be falsified because no matter what evidence you turn up, it fits into the theory. Einstein's Special Theory of Relitivity could be tested because there were differences between what it predicted and what Newtonion physics predicted would be observed when a body was moving fast enough. Either the measurements fitted Einstein or they fitted Newton, and if they had matched Newton, Einstein's theory would have been falsified. I'm no expert on String Theory, but from what other posters have written, nobody's come up with a clear-cut test for String Theory that can be carried out at present until now.
What I like about Diablo II (with expansion) is the number of character classes, plus the variety of skill trees. Just because you've won as a Necromancer specializing in curses doesn't mean you can't play again as a Necro specializing in Bone spells or Golems. The stratagy is quite different for each type of skills. Not only that, even if you do try the same skills again you're going to find different weapons, armor and items and that can change things considerably. Even if you only play in single-player mode, there's so much variety in it that it can keep you coming back for years.
Whenever I'm in the mood for really mindless violence, there's nothing better than the old Redneck Rampage games from Interplay. Yes, I know the clipping's so badly done that when you kill an Old Coot behind a counter his arm sticks through, but who cares? The game's so surrealistic that it just adds to the flavor of the game. Yeeeee-ha!
If you're forced to declare your identity before being allowed to travel, you can be singled out and prevented from travelling to a specific destination, say, the court in which you plan to make your appeal.
Yes, I suppose you could. However, if you really believe that this is a reasonable possibility, I suggest you get your tinfoil hat serviced.
I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense. Among other things, the right to petition the government doesn't specify anonymous petitions, just petitions.
If you can't travel anonymously, then you in fact do not have an independent right to petition your government.
What in the world has the ability to travel anonymously have to do with your right to petition the governent? There's nothing in the Constitution about the first, one way or the other but the second is guarenteed.
There's a reason this idea tanked that nobody's commented on as yet: no villans. As the article points out, soap operas thrive on constant conflict and some of the most memorable characters over the years have been vilans. If you ask the average person to name a character from Dallas, the odds are that the first name mentioned is JR.
OK, they are producing some. Not anywhere near as much as they could, and there's not much evidence that the fields are being reconditioned.
I'm not a Conservative, just a Moderate that's slightly to the right of Center. Not wedded to any ideology, and willing to change my tune to fit the facts. Thanx for the info.
I'd be much more willing to believe your conspiricy theory if there were even the slightest sign anywhere that the oil fields were being put back into production. Alas, there isn't, nor even signs that protecting them is a priority. I find it hard to believe the government would have put so much time and effort into Iraqi elections if oil were their only concern. Quite frankly, all these claims make me think you're so prejudiced against President Bush that you have to find evil motives for everything he does, regardless of the facts. If so, there's no need to because there's enogh things he's doing that are worth bashing (domestic spying and so on) that inventing conspiricies just hurts your position more than it helps. I know it's much harder to be objective and balanced, but you'd be more persuasive if you were.
Basically, I don't really know. What I do know is that the US government has lost all it's credibility over the past few years, and I'm not prepared to believe the Bush monkeys ever had another motive than oil to start the war.
If all we had wanted was the oil, we'd have gone in, taken over, reconditioned the oil fields and started pumping. No need to do any nation building. Instead, we're trying to build a democracy and leaving the oil for later. You can believe whatever you want, but from where I sit, the facts don't support your position.
If you're not interested in the show, why did you even bother to read past the title? Nobody forced you to invest any time and you're not entitled to a refund.
When I read the summary, I thought the poster had mis-typed the quote because vertebrae is a plural. When I RTFA'd, I found that the poster was right. Either that's what was said, or the reporter's the one making the mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I don't live in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or China, and I doubt you do either. If you did, you'd probably not be allowed to post things like that.
You're thinking of a "figure eight" orbit and from what I understand, that's not stable. However, there's another possibility: Proxima Centauri is far enough from the other two components of the system that it could have planets orbiting it only, as long as its ecliptic were properly oriented.
There was a time when I respectec Oprah. When she continued to support Frey long after the facts came out, I lost all respect for her. Her self-serving savaging of Frey has done nothing to rehabilitate her for me. From now on, her reccomendation of a book or cause not only won't make me buy or support it, it will make me suspicious of it. I wonder how many others feel the same way?
IPV6 will finally get accepted when it's discovered that it's the only way to play a network game of Duke Nukem Forever.
That's not the only reason. It's much less likely that a planet will have a stable orbit in a multi-star system, unless one of the stars is very far from the center of gravity. Even so, the chance of ther being a stable orbit inside the star's habitable zone (For earth-like values of habitable.) are very small.
I remember reading back in the '60s, about a similar problem here in the US. Researchers gave the tests a good look and found that part of the test required children to identify drawings of various home appliences and utensils. The drawings hadn't been updated in 30 years or so, and most of the subjects had no idea what tehy were supposed to represent. As an example, the drawing of a telephone still used the old candlestick model although the french style had replaced it decades ago. As soon as they updated the drawings, the IQ drop vanished.
I doubt that a judge actually would make such a ruling, or that it wouldn't be overturned on appeal. It was intended to show how far such a precedent could be warped if an activist judge really wanted to. Considering that federal courts have claimed jurisdiction over truck-stops because their customers are engaged in interstate commerce, it's not as far out as you and I would like it to be.
That link's too tame. Now, if you really want to live on the edge, click on Schrodenger's Link. Warning, by clicking on that link you may or may not be downloading kiddy pr0n. Until you click, you won't know.
No direct implications, I'll agree. But laywers and judges like to reason from analogy, starting with one precedent and ending up with a decision in a seeminly unrelated case. A judge could later say that burning a pirated copy of a movie onto a DVD is equivalent to what happened here and should be treated the same. This would be a Bad Thing, and that's what people are worrying about here.
If a theory makes no predictions about reality, it can't be falsified. If it does, but can explain any possible results from a test of that prediction, it can't be. If it makes predictions that can be tested and there are results possible that can't be fitted into the theory, then and only then it can be falsified.
As an example, a theory that God created the Universe in 4004 BC with sedimentary rocks containing fossiles making it look like the world was millions of years old can't be falsified because no matter what evidence you turn up, it fits into the theory. Einstein's Special Theory of Relitivity could be tested because there were differences between what it predicted and what Newtonion physics predicted would be observed when a body was moving fast enough. Either the measurements fitted Einstein or they fitted Newton, and if they had matched Newton, Einstein's theory would have been falsified. I'm no expert on String Theory, but from what other posters have written, nobody's come up with a clear-cut test for String Theory that can be carried out at present until now.
What I like about Diablo II (with expansion) is the number of character classes, plus the variety of skill trees. Just because you've won as a Necromancer specializing in curses doesn't mean you can't play again as a Necro specializing in Bone spells or Golems. The stratagy is quite different for each type of skills. Not only that, even if you do try the same skills again you're going to find different weapons, armor and items and that can change things considerably. Even if you only play in single-player mode, there's so much variety in it that it can keep you coming back for years.
Whenever I'm in the mood for really mindless violence, there's nothing better than the old Redneck Rampage games from Interplay. Yes, I know the clipping's so badly done that when you kill an Old Coot behind a counter his arm sticks through, but who cares? The game's so surrealistic that it just adds to the flavor of the game. Yeeeee-ha!
Yes, I suppose you could. However, if you really believe that this is a reasonable possibility, I suggest you get your tinfoil hat serviced.
You mean like the notorious Republican pro-gun nut John Kerry?
I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense. Among other things, the right to petition the government doesn't specify anonymous petitions, just petitions.
What in the world has the ability to travel anonymously have to do with your right to petition the governent? There's nothing in the Constitution about the first, one way or the other but the second is guarenteed.
There's a reason this idea tanked that nobody's commented on as yet: no villans. As the article points out, soap operas thrive on constant conflict and some of the most memorable characters over the years have been vilans. If you ask the average person to name a character from Dallas, the odds are that the first name mentioned is JR.
I'm not a Conservative, just a Moderate that's slightly to the right of Center. Not wedded to any ideology, and willing to change my tune to fit the facts. Thanx for the info.
I'd be much more willing to believe your conspiricy theory if there were even the slightest sign anywhere that the oil fields were being put back into production. Alas, there isn't, nor even signs that protecting them is a priority. I find it hard to believe the government would have put so much time and effort into Iraqi elections if oil were their only concern. Quite frankly, all these claims make me think you're so prejudiced against President Bush that you have to find evil motives for everything he does, regardless of the facts. If so, there's no need to because there's enogh things he's doing that are worth bashing (domestic spying and so on) that inventing conspiricies just hurts your position more than it helps. I know it's much harder to be objective and balanced, but you'd be more persuasive if you were.
If all we had wanted was the oil, we'd have gone in, taken over, reconditioned the oil fields and started pumping. No need to do any nation building. Instead, we're trying to build a democracy and leaving the oil for later. You can believe whatever you want, but from where I sit, the facts don't support your position.
If the oil companies are pillaging the country, why isn't the oil flowing?
You must really be new here!
If you're not interested in the show, why did you even bother to read past the title? Nobody forced you to invest any time and you're not entitled to a refund.
When I read the summary, I thought the poster had mis-typed the quote because vertebrae is a plural. When I RTFA'd, I found that the poster was right. Either that's what was said, or the reporter's the one making the mistake.
Of course there are just hatched fish that are smaller than this. The point is that this is the smallest adult fish known.