How do you manage to drive a car with all their "screen bezels"?
Also, when the time comes, I guess it's only contacts for you. not glasses (how so many people can put up with them?)...not that you could even wear glasses after the amputation of your nose that you already performed, so it won't irritatingly obstruct the field of vision.
That also means the periphery monitors don't really have to be of the same "quality" as the main one; lowering costs even more (which only strenghtens that. in "price per pixel". it's cheaper to buy three average screens than one with a massive resolution)
Also, people don't seem to mind "screen bezels" much when wearing glasses or drivinf a car; heck, not many cut off their nose so it won't be obstructing their field of view...
I'm not so sure. It's certainly hard to wrap one's head around it with, say, a "morality" that has been given on a platter; those often presume to deal with absolutes (and want to give that feeling to those who follow them)
But it's possible to consider certain acts as amoral and still do them deliberately (because there might be a real overall benefit in specific cases, for example); it's better IMHO than people who do things, because they are used to the idea that those things are "not bad".
Guess what - they still are (well, might be). And it's a test of your morality if you can admit to yourself that what you're doing is an amoral act; even if it has to be done. At the least because it's our failing to do it in some better way.
Quite likely pretty much all galaxies will be "a galaxy of black holes" at some point, simply because virtually everything else will decay in the meantime (and long before black holes themselves will decay). Some models even have the possibility that whole Universe will turn into a singularity (though not really of the same kind as a black hole)
As for "giant one with an event Horizon as big as a galaxy", you're unlikely to find enough mass in one place for something like that to form (nevermind the unlikeness of all that mass collapsing into a black hole)
Unfortunately drag is a nonlinear function with respect to velocity/wind resistance
But so is the efficiency of the engines. And both of them in relation to altitude / air density.
Also, modern airplanes actually fly, at altitude, almost on the verge of stalling...that's at their cruising speed. And another thing: during the recent closure of airspace over Europe, some companies tested flights at much lower altitude (most likely much slower, too). They quickly abandoned it whet it was clear how much fuel was wasted (some test flights actually weren't managing to get to their intended destination, had to land midway for refueling; that was on local trips, most likely with fuel tanks full at the start)
You're forgetting about Embraer or Bombardier. Companies which start to introduce ever bigger planes, ever closer to competing directly with Boeing/Airbus/Tupolev mainstray (B737, A320). And also using "classical" design...
While I'm sure you can devise a design which, as part of greater fuel economy, flies slower (turboprops might be just that...) - it won't really work for existing aircraft, like mentioned by you 737s. Airlines take care to fly them at optimal speed, not the greatest speed; optimal for fuel economy.
For example Rynair (which cares greatly about lowering costs...), some time ago, changed the guidalines for cruising speed by...2 or 3 km/h. Accidentally in this case it was lowering it, but might have been just as well an increase; what works best for given airplane / engines / routes / weight combo (didn't stop local journalists from proclaiming "Ryanair will fly slower to save fuel", which was technically correct, but....)
How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)
... The only way we'll ever be truly free is if people let other people live their own lives and not try to impose their own personal dogma on others.
Thing is, social contructs known as religions survive only when they do the latter. Strive to be able to do it (what's that story just after this one?). Eventually vanish if they don't, or at least not so efficiently as competing ones; as vast majority already did.
As I've said, it was read in different place just prior to writing that comment, and was carried over. Doesn't change the argument.
(it also sticks more because the word in my native language is totally unrelated in the case of fellatio, but practically identical with masturbation) That said...sure, performing masturbation is not alien to me (good luck finding somebody...), while performing fellatio is. I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that / you're free to do it contrariwise.
...There is a reason professors keep open doors when young coeds drop by for help. There is a reason why dentists don't work on 16 yr old girls' teeth without someone else in the room..../quote? Seriously?
Nice, now you even managed to miss the point that it simply is violence... (just with caveats which make it a neccessity, or beneficial in wider picture)
As I said, not all; but too much (especially considering their holier than thou approach...)
You're wrong about animal husbandry; church likes to claim that sexual "deviations" are "unnatural" hence they do have a stake in animal husbandry, they like to point out animals which confirm their views.
Which might have perfectly been (though of course didn't have to be...so?) the case here.
Need a lot of reinforcement lately? If you resolve to discussing only the Amish after a post with "statistics", "generally", "very often"... (this is how you determine how some correlations work in the world on wide area and long term)
Sure, but not that common - with religions claiming to be the absolute moral guidance (which demonstrably doesn't really help even their "elite" to be more moral), with they having the bigger hold in places which certainly aren't "nice" and, if the opportunity is there, maintaining those places like that - they themselves give plenty of occasions.
Sure, if something bad happens (which only accidentally touches on the topics with which the church has a problem...) in a place where some religion has a very strong foothold...that's unrelated.
If something good happens in the same place - thanks to them obviously!
Got it...
PS. The bonds of group / common morality are stronger than any "gender opression"...
That's a necessity, a small amount of violence to prevent larger amount of violence. Still doesn't make it "inherently not bad" (and was often overused btw...)
It does not "run" it, sure. But attitudes can get carried over.
Hey, certainly the church doesn't run Irish legislature, right? You know, the one which would never pass blasphemy laws. It also certainly doesn't run law enforcement and pedagogical control institutions; it couldn't hide child abuses for few decades...
Masturbation was simply used in some other post, big deal. You really think it makes any difference?...
I could consider igoring all this if some people want to be stupid in private, without harming others. But that's not the case even now, and certainly wasn't; and since I don't focus on it, repaying the debt will take some time.
Not really, those laws are a legal fiction anyway (using literary term here, not judgical one); otherwise pretty much most religious group would have to be immediatelly prosecuted against...most of the other. Such laws serve mostly the dominant faith. Or generally are brought over only when it's convenient.
Well, what is the most notable organisation in Ireland condemning masturbation?
OTOH I can see why that would be certainly unrelated in any way; after all that organisation surely doesn't influence any people, doesn't manage to make some consider masturbation to be something "bad".
Slashdot Mirror
How do you manage to drive a car with all their "screen bezels"?
Also, when the time comes, I guess it's only contacts for you. not glasses (how so many people can put up with them?)...not that you could even wear glasses after the amputation of your nose that you already performed, so it won't irritatingly obstruct the field of vision.
That also means the periphery monitors don't really have to be of the same "quality" as the main one; lowering costs even more (which only strenghtens that. in "price per pixel". it's cheaper to buy three average screens than one with a massive resolution)
Also, people don't seem to mind "screen bezels" much when wearing glasses or drivinf a car; heck, not many cut off their nose so it won't be obstructing their field of view...
http://xkcd.com/732/
I'm not so sure. It's certainly hard to wrap one's head around it with, say, a "morality" that has been given on a platter; those often presume to deal with absolutes (and want to give that feeling to those who follow them)
But it's possible to consider certain acts as amoral and still do them deliberately (because there might be a real overall benefit in specific cases, for example); it's better IMHO than people who do things, because they are used to the idea that those things are "not bad".
Guess what - they still are (well, might be). And it's a test of your morality if you can admit to yourself that what you're doing is an amoral act; even if it has to be done. At the least because it's our failing to do it in some better way.
Quite likely pretty much all galaxies will be "a galaxy of black holes" at some point, simply because virtually everything else will decay in the meantime (and long before black holes themselves will decay). Some models even have the possibility that whole Universe will turn into a singularity (though not really of the same kind as a black hole)
As for "giant one with an event Horizon as big as a galaxy", you're unlikely to find enough mass in one place for something like that to form (nevermind the unlikeness of all that mass collapsing into a black hole)
("worse"/"better" - is an act of eating galaxies ammoral? ;) )
Our galaxy is a cannibal, too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Stellar_Stream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoceros_Ring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies
(and those links are just a starting point; BTW, BOINC project Milkyway@home models this)
Kind of like how all similar size ocean liners "go about the same speed".
Is there more than one ocean liner now anyway? ;)
They are not profitable as is anyway. They wouldn't need bailouts from time to time and massive gov infrastructure subsidies if that weren't the case.
Unfortunately drag is a nonlinear function with respect to velocity/wind resistance
But so is the efficiency of the engines. And both of them in relation to altitude / air density.
Also, modern airplanes actually fly, at altitude, almost on the verge of stalling...that's at their cruising speed.
And another thing: during the recent closure of airspace over Europe, some companies tested flights at much lower altitude (most likely much slower, too). They quickly abandoned it whet it was clear how much fuel was wasted (some test flights actually weren't managing to get to their intended destination, had to land midway for refueling; that was on local trips, most likely with fuel tanks full at the start)
You're forgetting about Embraer or Bombardier. Companies which start to introduce ever bigger planes, ever closer to competing directly with Boeing/Airbus/Tupolev mainstray (B737, A320). And also using "classical" design...
While I'm sure you can devise a design which, as part of greater fuel economy, flies slower (turboprops might be just that...) - it won't really work for existing aircraft, like mentioned by you 737s. Airlines take care to fly them at optimal speed, not the greatest speed; optimal for fuel economy.
For example Rynair (which cares greatly about lowering costs...), some time ago, changed the guidalines for cruising speed by...2 or 3 km/h. Accidentally in this case it was lowering it, but might have been just as well an increase; what works best for given airplane / engines / routes / weight combo (didn't stop local journalists from proclaiming "Ryanair will fly slower to save fuel", which was technically correct, but....)
Nothing unusual about such confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws#N.E2.80.93Q
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Poe's_law
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)
...
The only way we'll ever be truly free is if people let other people live their own lives and not try to impose their own personal dogma on others.
Thing is, social contructs known as religions survive only when they do the latter. Strive to be able to do it (what's that story just after this one?). Eventually vanish if they don't, or at least not so efficiently as competing ones; as vast majority already did.
As I've said, it was read in different place just prior to writing that comment, and was carried over. Doesn't change the argument.
(it also sticks more because the word in my native language is totally unrelated in the case of fellatio, but practically identical with masturbation)
That said...sure, performing masturbation is not alien to me (good luck finding somebody...), while performing fellatio is. I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that / you're free to do it contrariwise.
...There is a reason professors keep open doors when young coeds drop by for help. There is a reason why dentists don't work on 16 yr old girls' teeth without someone else in the room..../quote?
Seriously?
Nice, now you even managed to miss the point that it simply is violence... (just with caveats which make it a neccessity, or beneficial in wider picture)
As I said, not all; but too much (especially considering their holier than thou approach...)
You're wrong about animal husbandry; church likes to claim that sexual "deviations" are "unnatural" hence they do have a stake in animal husbandry, they like to point out animals which confirm their views.
Which might have perfectly been (though of course didn't have to be...so?) the case here.
Think a bit more long term. And encompassing wider societal perturbances.
Need a lot of reinforcement lately? If you resolve to discussing only the Amish after a post with "statistics", "generally", "very often"... (this is how you determine how some correlations work in the world on wide area and long term)
Sure, but not that common - with religions claiming to be the absolute moral guidance (which demonstrably doesn't really help even their "elite" to be more moral), with they having the bigger hold in places which certainly aren't "nice" and, if the opportunity is there, maintaining those places like that - they themselves give plenty of occasions.
Sure, if something bad happens (which only accidentally touches on the topics with which the church has a problem...) in a place where some religion has a very strong foothold...that's unrelated.
If something good happens in the same place - thanks to them obviously!
Got it...
PS. The bonds of group / common morality are stronger than any "gender opression"...
That's a necessity, a small amount of violence to prevent larger amount of violence. Still doesn't make it "inherently not bad" (and was often overused btw...)
It does not "run" it, sure. But attitudes can get carried over.
Hey, certainly the church doesn't run Irish legislature, right? You know, the one which would never pass blasphemy laws. It also certainly doesn't run law enforcement and pedagogical control institutions; it couldn't hide child abuses for few decades...
Masturbation was simply used in some other post, big deal. You really think it makes any difference?...
I could consider igoring all this if some people want to be stupid in private, without harming others. But that's not the case even now, and certainly wasn't; and since I don't focus on it, repaying the debt will take some time.
Not really, those laws are a legal fiction anyway (using literary term here, not judgical one); otherwise pretty much most religious group would have to be immediatelly prosecuted against...most of the other.
Such laws serve mostly the dominant faith. Or generally are brought over only when it's convenient.
Well, what is the most notable organisation in Ireland condemning masturbation?
OTOH I can see why that would be certainly unrelated in any way; after all that organisation surely doesn't influence any people, doesn't manage to make some consider masturbation to be something "bad".