But we ARE seeing the "beginning" - that's the microwave background radiation, oldest emitted light that we can see (just after the universe stopped being was opaque)
"...though of course that will be pornography only to me; hence an example of me wanting to force the standards of my perverted mind into law" (what's missing from that quote IMHO)
Well, you seem to agree it's a matter of scope. Quantitative differences, not qualitative ones. Because, really (disregarding that people do oppose Scientology also because of its beliefs), the critique stemming from organization of particular church, rules it imposes on its followers, its oversensitiveness for critique, "business" side of things...could be applied to any religion.
Scientology is first in line for such critique because it's so new & opposing established faiths; also convenient as a subject of critique with its unfolding right before our eyes. Mormonism, as you surely know, was similarly approached at the beginning; now it's more in the area of established faiths, but still not so much as more ancient ones - hence probably "next in line" for critique, that's all. As a matter of fact, Christianity at the beginning was also similarly shunned; just a natural order of things.
Though BTW, the idea of somebody coming back to life wasn't really "out there"; there is a huge number of resurrection deities in many mythologies (as for the word itself - I simply consider it an adequate, precise term; I don't see why the number of adherents should be the reason for distinction between "religion" and "mythology" - there are still people following Norse or ancient Greek ones, after all...)
Or it might start to fall under similar categories as Scientology with society becoming more and more secular?
Scientology is an obvious first target of ridicule, but with more sensitive average (society-wise) BS detector, it might gradually encompass more and more also mythologies like Mormonism.
As is usual, as you get older, you start to have romanticized outlook at the past, seeing it through rose colored glasses. There was never much privacy to speak of against some slice of society if you wanted to live in it.
Now the notions of what makes societal groups are simply changing; they broadened quite a bit.
Actually those "youngsters" have a much more control over what, in relation to what's possible, they reveal than most people in history of mankind. And much greater freedom in pursuing what activities, thoughts they want for themselves. Which kinda enhances privacy, IMHO.
I seem to remember dragonflies semi-regularly keep one pair of their wings stationary during flight. Perhaps they also sometimes fly with both not-flapping? Certainly there's an airfoil.
Generally they are highly agile, capable of incredible feats for such simple nervous system - for example, during pursuit of their pray, they supposedly follow a "camouflaging" flightpath; first one which makes them stationary in relation to the scenery, from the point of view of the pray! Afterwards, when closer, they become stationary in relation to the prey, its eyes.
I expect dragonflies can still surprise when it comes to their flying capabilities. They were perfecting it (active predators and all...) since before there were dinosaurs.
The way you stopped parasitizing on success of your parents or grandparents? By, say, denouncing any possible benefits from your education that was allowed by their success?
Now, I'm disgusted by "cheating" the public in regards to initial deal about copyrighted works and public domain. But yours is not as clear-cut argument as it seems, IMHO. We all do it. We always did. It makes sense evolutionary.
Though some copyright holders could argue, and not without some merit, that it falls under similar care for your descendants as...everybody does. Even if it's usually by the method of "good" home & education (which in turn assures good living standards for your grandkids, and so on)
All myths have a basis in true events in regards to how they came to be - a story of certain function grown out of particular community. Some just took "artist license" in regards to their narrative further than the others, so to speak.
It would be also a good idea to look at all myths like that if you want to wonder about them. "Western" ones aren't any more enlighted. Ancient ones or belonging to indigenous people living today are also regarded as more or less factual, by their adherents.
Bedside lamp is better though. It has a huge bonus of lighting the area much more uniformly, hence helping to ease this eye-strain that was mentioned by us previously.
No, I pointed out that you'd misunderstood those alternative theories of gravity.
But I wasn't referring specifically to any of them, you did. I just left open the possibility that we might well still have some other choreographer in the future; my acceptance of general relativity notwithstanding.
Anyway I'm perfectly aware what makes a black hole a black hole, their Schwarzschild radius, and so on. Which is irrelevant here anyway, since when discussing orbits mass is the only thing that matters. Those two objects could be two compact swarms of butterflies for all we know.;p
You are forgetting that all that matters in discussing whether the precession of orbit due to relativistic effects is not insignificant, is the size of orbit relative to the gravity well of participating bodies. And the fact is, those two supermassive black holes are comparably close to each other like Mercury and Sun, relative to the gravity wells of those bodies. Comparably deep in each others gravity well to the one in which Mercury is (nvm that for those black holes it can still go much further down). The effect is clearly there.
Yes, we might not be able to see it from this distance. But that doesn't change who the choreographer is, nothing more.
Oh my, the times are changing too fast for me, it seems. I can easily carry in my bag at least one piece of hardware for reading text. In the form of analogue book.
And I've heard those e-book readers are actually smaller. And can hold much more than one volume.
... I just recently picked up a nook and I have to say it is the easiest screen to read on so far. Much easier on the eyes.
I can read for hours and hours with no more eyestrain than if I was reading a paper book. The e-ink display is definitely superior to any CRT or LCD I've ever read for long periods of time. My only complaint is that there's no backlight or anything... It would have been nice if they'd embedded a little LED somewhere on the thing, so I could read in low-light conditions easier.
One of the reasons it's so easy on the eyes is specifically because it doesn't have a backlight. Our eyes get tired less if there's not much brightness differences in the environment.
And we can't explore both...why exactly? (plus mission to Europa is being worked on; though it will be not an easy feat)
As a matter of fact, why do you want to limit us to Europa? Why do you dismiss Mars outright? (there are still those weird methane emissions we have to sort out; and possibility of subsurface water) Also, what makes you think Europa is more likely to harbor life than Ganymede, Callisto, high atmosphere of Venus or even Enceladus?
Mars has one big advantage of being relatively easy to get there too.
Really, iPod Touch isn't that far from doing most of the things Droid can...except phone calls. If only it would have a camera (probably coming in the next revision) and could use, through Bluetooth, "dumbphone" as a net access and GPS (I'm not holding my breath here)
That's pretty much my ideal usage scenario. Since I don't like the thought of my phone being a multimedia powerhouse that saps its battery quickly, I would prefer to have second solid, simple mobile phone as a backup...in which case telephony part of one device also becomes redundant. So why not settle with iPod Touch-like device and tethering it to something like Nokia 2710 (over 2 weeks standby and GPS, for 100 Euro without contract)
Preferably with a setting on the dumbphone "don't allow data access and GPS when battery is at x%"
Slashdot Mirror
But we ARE seeing the "beginning" - that's the microwave background radiation, oldest emitted light that we can see (just after the universe stopped being was opaque)
"...though of course that will be pornography only to me; hence an example of me wanting to force the standards of my perverted mind into law" (what's missing from that quote IMHO)
Well, you seem to agree it's a matter of scope. Quantitative differences, not qualitative ones. Because, really (disregarding that people do oppose Scientology also because of its beliefs), the critique stemming from organization of particular church, rules it imposes on its followers, its oversensitiveness for critique, "business" side of things...could be applied to any religion.
Scientology is first in line for such critique because it's so new & opposing established faiths; also convenient as a subject of critique with its unfolding right before our eyes. Mormonism, as you surely know, was similarly approached at the beginning; now it's more in the area of established faiths, but still not so much as more ancient ones - hence probably "next in line" for critique, that's all. As a matter of fact, Christianity at the beginning was also similarly shunned; just a natural order of things.
Though BTW, the idea of somebody coming back to life wasn't really "out there"; there is a huge number of resurrection deities in many mythologies (as for the word itself - I simply consider it an adequate, precise term; I don't see why the number of adherents should be the reason for distinction between "religion" and "mythology" - there are still people following Norse or ancient Greek ones, after all...)
So who gets to decide if they are arousing? Perverted prosecutors?
Or it might start to fall under similar categories as Scientology with society becoming more and more secular?
Scientology is an obvious first target of ridicule, but with more sensitive average (society-wise) BS detector, it might gradually encompass more and more also mythologies like Mormonism.
As is usual, as you get older, you start to have romanticized outlook at the past, seeing it through rose colored glasses. There was never much privacy to speak of against some slice of society if you wanted to live in it.
Now the notions of what makes societal groups are simply changing; they broadened quite a bit.
Actually those "youngsters" have a much more control over what, in relation to what's possible, they reveal than most people in history of mankind. And much greater freedom in pursuing what activities, thoughts they want for themselves. Which kinda enhances privacy, IMHO.
You had a nuclear reactor at your university?
I seem to remember dragonflies semi-regularly keep one pair of their wings stationary during flight. Perhaps they also sometimes fly with both not-flapping? Certainly there's an airfoil.
Generally they are highly agile, capable of incredible feats for such simple nervous system - for example, during pursuit of their pray, they supposedly follow a "camouflaging" flightpath; first one which makes them stationary in relation to the scenery, from the point of view of the pray! Afterwards, when closer, they become stationary in relation to the prey, its eyes.
I expect dragonflies can still surprise when it comes to their flying capabilities. They were perfecting it (active predators and all...) since before there were dinosaurs.
Let me check google calculator...hm, slightly above 3m.
I don't there even are any that high. Certainly never heard about any living here...
The way you stopped parasitizing on success of your parents or grandparents? By, say, denouncing any possible benefits from your education that was allowed by their success?
Now, I'm disgusted by "cheating" the public in regards to initial deal about copyrighted works and public domain. But yours is not as clear-cut argument as it seems, IMHO. We all do it. We always did. It makes sense evolutionary.
Though some copyright holders could argue, and not without some merit, that it falls under similar care for your descendants as...everybody does. Even if it's usually by the method of "good" home & education (which in turn assures good living standards for your grandkids, and so on)
Where valuing local employees went at your place?
All myths have a basis in true events in regards to how they came to be - a story of certain function grown out of particular community. Some just took "artist license" in regards to their narrative further than the others, so to speak.
It would be also a good idea to look at all myths like that if you want to wonder about them. "Western" ones aren't any more enlighted. Ancient ones or belonging to indigenous people living today are also regarded as more or less factual, by their adherents.
Goa'uld
I had the impression people prosecuting minors sending among themselves just naked pics don't seem to think so...
Bedside lamp is better though. It has a huge bonus of lighting the area much more uniformly, hence helping to ease this eye-strain that was mentioned by us previously.
No, I pointed out that you'd misunderstood those alternative theories of gravity.
But I wasn't referring specifically to any of them, you did. I just left open the possibility that we might well still have some other choreographer in the future; my acceptance of general relativity notwithstanding.
Anyway I'm perfectly aware what makes a black hole a black hole, their Schwarzschild radius, and so on. Which is irrelevant here anyway, since when discussing orbits mass is the only thing that matters. Those two objects could be two compact swarms of butterflies for all we know. ;p
You are forgetting that all that matters in discussing whether the precession of orbit due to relativistic effects is not insignificant, is the size of orbit relative to the gravity well of participating bodies. And the fact is, those two supermassive black holes are comparably close to each other like Mercury and Sun, relative to the gravity wells of those bodies. Comparably deep in each others gravity well to the one in which Mercury is (nvm that for those black holes it can still go much further down). The effect is clearly there.
Yes, we might not be able to see it from this distance. But that doesn't change who the choreographer is, nothing more.
Hey, perhaps he's in fact hoping this particular tech will bring the singularity one step closer...
Oh my, the times are changing too fast for me, it seems. I can easily carry in my bag at least one piece of hardware for reading text. In the form of analogue book.
And I've heard those e-book readers are actually smaller. And can hold much more than one volume.
...
I just recently picked up a nook and I have to say it is the easiest screen to read on so far. Much easier on the eyes.
I can read for hours and hours with no more eyestrain than if I was reading a paper book. The e-ink display is definitely superior to any CRT or LCD I've ever read for long periods of time. My only complaint is that there's no backlight or anything... It would have been nice if they'd embedded a little LED somewhere on the thing, so I could read in low-light conditions easier.
One of the reasons it's so easy on the eyes is specifically because it doesn't have a backlight. Our eyes get tired less if there's not much brightness differences in the environment.
And we can't explore both...why exactly? (plus mission to Europa is being worked on; though it will be not an easy feat)
As a matter of fact, why do you want to limit us to Europa? Why do you dismiss Mars outright? (there are still those weird methane emissions we have to sort out; and possibility of subsurface water) Also, what makes you think Europa is more likely to harbor life than Ganymede, Callisto, high atmosphere of Venus or even Enceladus?
Mars has one big advantage of being relatively easy to get there too.
I wonder; what Vietnam experience with unmanned traps for low flying vehicles?
Technological civilizations*
With all the complications brought by extinction-level events and lack of capability to spread.
And it's even very close to a star for efficient energy capture...
Really, iPod Touch isn't that far from doing most of the things Droid can...except phone calls. If only it would have a camera (probably coming in the next revision) and could use, through Bluetooth, "dumbphone" as a net access and GPS (I'm not holding my breath here)
That's pretty much my ideal usage scenario. Since I don't like the thought of my phone being a multimedia powerhouse that saps its battery quickly, I would prefer to have second solid, simple mobile phone as a backup...in which case telephony part of one device also becomes redundant. So why not settle with iPod Touch-like device and tethering it to something like Nokia 2710 (over 2 weeks standby and GPS, for 100 Euro without contract)
Preferably with a setting on the dumbphone "don't allow data access and GPS when battery is at x%"