Or do you embrace the ideals on which this country was founded?
Yeah, like theft of other peoples land, rape of the natural environment, and military expansion into another country whose inhabitants are now illegally present in land that they used to be owners of.
You clearly don't understand the ebook format at all. In the last 3 years, I have bought 3, read it, "three" ebooks - the rest of my 200 title collection were free, both in price and licence. Maybe you are part of the consumer culture, but either way you are wrong. Sony sells hardware, they are not a publisher. And I don't even own a sony device. Maybe you want everything "owned" by some corporate entity, you get what you pay for I guess. Personally, I want what I have already paid for, for nothing. There is nothing new worth having, at least so far.
This will probably sound like crap, but, if anybody out there has had to deal with heat in any real form, they would have found that the greatest heat was never at the surface. Light a flame - the heat isn't at the yellow outer edge, it isn't in the centre, it's precisely where the blue cone terminates. Why should the sun be any different. Yes I know it's a nuclear phenomenon, but FFS, the evidence stands for itself. Oh, sorry, this is Discovery science on/. these days. maybe I should swear and say wow a few times !
Maybe that's why in the summary and the title it is written "island". Does the inclusion of quotation marks mean anything to you, or were you expecting fucking palm trees growing on it ?
Why does the NYTimes article say things that are out of date, inaccurate and in some cases flat out wrong ? The interview with Myers is dated 2 July but this article from CERN itself dates from the 15th and does not specify any figures for the number of bad connections. They have to run the tests before they know how many bad connections there are, and that hasn't been completed.
So basically this is a fluff piece that takes various peoples statements out of context and tries to promote a problem that CERN itself does not support. Yes it's late, yes there are issues, but the title LHC struggles is hardly warranted.
Do you support young kids being allowed to go to the pub with their parents - at 10pm on a school night ? Do you support the idea of kids being raised on a diet of chips and burgers ? Do you think it's the kids fault if he/she steals, vandalises, or assaults others ? Or might there be a lack of parental guidance there ?
As usual, the lazy assholes in society fuck it up for the law abiding majority. Maybe if personal freedoms weren't so much demanded people might realise that if they brought a kid into the world, they have a duty to care for it and train it before they release it into the wild. But no, single mothers have a RIGHT to go drinking every night, they have a RIGHT to go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth. But somehow their duties to their kids and to society (by bringing up useful well mannered members of society) are forgotten in the constant stream of me, me, me.
What about my right not to be assaulted as I walk the streets ? What about my right not to have a paving slab dropped on to my vehicle as I pass under a bridge ? What about my right to get some sleep because I have to start work at 4am, but can't because some kid's having a party until 3am or later ?
I've never been imprisoned, I've worked and paid my dues, but somehow I have less rights than people who do what they want with no service to anybody but themselves.
Do us all a favour and don't come back - ever. It's your kind of attitude that has put us in this mess in the first place. You proved that in your first line. You're not interested in your kids welfare, you're only interested in YOUR welfare, no matter what it does to them or anybody else. I'm glad to see that the UK is exporting chavs, it can only be a growth industry.
If you want freedom, don't fuck your kids, don't claim the dole for ever, don't be noticed by the system. It works for most of us. You may as well say we shouldn't lock up criminals because they have a right to freedom. The people who will be housed in these places are already at the lowest point on the scale. In most cases they have no-one to blame but themselves. Should we just ignore them, or should we make an attempt to actively monitor what's going wrong ? You think they won't lie if you ask them to fill in a questionnaire ?
I'm so sorry to live in a country that breeds idiots who take everything they see in the news as gospel, and makes no effort to educate themselves. Or to put it another way, how much of a pay cut are you willing to take to make sure these poor people have a job to go to ? How many evenings a week will you give up to ensure that parents don't abuse/murder/prostitute their kids ? I'm betting not much in either case.
But a trite sound bite makes so much difference, thank you.
You obviously don't come from a country where nearly half of all adult males were killed in 2 world wars. And 99% of those who were killed were working class. The whole country paid with blood sweat and tears in the first half of the 20th century, and at the end of WW2, the people felt that things should be better. We elect the government to do things on our behalf, we give them lots of money to enable them to do it. Just because the system has been subverted by ne'r-do-wells does not diminish the concept. At least if the govt. has our money some wank banker can't go bust and take our insurance coverage with him. Do you really pay half your income in taxes to support welfare ? I don't. Maybe you are closer to the cut than you realise, hope you've got good insurance.
Chicken and Egg. The reason companies started paying less, and being able to pay less, is that in a relatively short time, the workforce went from being mostly male, to being roughly 60/40 male / female. Do you think that they suddenly had need for all these new workers ? Sudden extra orders to fulfill that needed an extra 40% more workers ?
The existing jobs were gradually split in order to provide extra places with less productivity per worker. Of course the companies are going to pay less. Add to this scenario the governments legal insistence that companies MUST employ certain fractions of women, disabled, ethnic minorities etc, and you quickly end up with a situation where there is not enough work to go around. You can now also add immigrant workers from the EU soaking up work at lower pay rates than the indigenous people.
You may see my post as misanthropic, mysogenous, or racist, but the simple fact is that you can only provide for a certain number of people by dividing what is available. You cannot run at a deficit on job availability or you end up with lower wages and unemployment. Just because the economists want to believe that continuous growth is indeed possible, it doesn't make it true. All that happens is what exists gets divided among a greater amount of people, driving down each individuals share. Welcome to the future. With global population rising, each earthling is due less and less as time goes on. You may think it's alright to rely on capitalism to allow you to climb over others heads to grab your "fair" share, but the number of people who are able to do that is vastly outnumbered by the increasingly devalued masses.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking I have a solution to this problem, but lack of solution does not mean lack of problem. We obviously can't confine women to the home like in the 1950s, we can't hire workers based on race, religion or (lack of) handicap, people do migrate to find better conditions for themselves and their families. But we also cannot continue to subdivide the available work and expect to maintain the same standard of living. The UK is flooded with jobs for office staff who basically do nothing other than input data to computers. This kind of work is precisely the kind of work that computers were supposed to make obsolete. But Britain Needs Jobs ! Companies get subsidies for hiring staff, so they create meaningless jobs to gain the subsidies.
I have (almost) always been a manual worker. I liked my life and the pay while not being stellar was almost invariably better than working at the lower levels in an office (twice the pay in most cases). Now immigration has increased, manual work has become less well paid and harder to find. So where's next ? The office job is paying half my old income level, do I give up my life and possessions to conform to the new income, or try to fight to the top ? Will it matter in the long run, or by the time I get there will the finish line have moved on ? These are not simple personal problems, they are important political problems, which most politicians are trying hard to ignore because they can't easily be solved and so will not make them look good. Capitalism is not going to solve this, and neither is the current crop of socialists, because they have morphed into capitalists "with a heart". Sometimes you need a firm hand on the tiller in government, because the people should not always get what they want. Sometimes it is better for everybody if the population are forced to accept changes they don't like, even if it costs them personally. I don't see any current politician with the balls to get the country out of this even if there were a relatively easy solution.
To swing back on topic, there is a reason why we have a chav culture, and whole generations of a family living on benefits - the govt. LIKES it that way ! Less active workers means less jobs needed, means higher pay for those who do work and the bonus is that it is all paid for by those who work. The unemployed still buy stuff, sti
Many years ago, I was watching TV with my dad when there was a familiar scene played on the screen - the one from vietnam where the young girl is running down the road with most of her skin burnt off her back. My dad said at the time that that was pornography. So define modern.
You are an idiot then. He said way more fragile than a biker on PCP. A biker on PCP is fragile, so he said way more fragile. Nothing wrong with that sentence, just your comprehension. Less chance than a snowball in hell does not mean you have more chance does it ?
5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?
So it's ok if the humans lives are lost only on the opposing side ? What if you're the aggressor ? What if both sides have robots ? If one side is defeated, what happens then ? Are these military robots going to run the occupation government, or just slaughter all humans ?
If there is no risk to your human forces in a war, there is no reason to avoid war. Do you think nuclear weapons have been unused for a half century because they save lives of your country men, or because their use is unconscionable and would result in massive civilian death on both sides ?
War is not a game, and making it into one does not solve any problems. If your country was invaded how do you fight back ? Do you set aside a field where your countrys force of 1000 robots does battle with the invaders 100,000 robots ? You will lose, and you have still been invaded. What you really do is fight a guerilla action and make it so expensive in lives and equipment that the invader has to withdraw. Have Afghanistan/Korea/Vietnam taught you nothing ? Or do you look forward to a Terminator type existence where you spend your life running and hiding from machines ? Last I heard, Al Quaida has no regular army, air force, ICBMs or the like but they sure made the US pucker its ass. Less than 20 people made the world flinch. Try defending against that with robots. I'm pretty sure that if the US invaded a country by using robots, you would get more of the same. There is nothing worse than a bully who refuses to meet you and fight on equal terms. Far from removing the human consequences, you would ensure that you were sought out and destroyed as punishment for your disrespect and cowardice.
You appear to be comfortable with the notion of sitting on your fat ass in the basement watching family guy and eating cheetos while a scene from the Terminator is played out in a foreign country, in an action run by your government on your behalf. Beware, what goes around, comes around.
Humans have to take the risk of dying to make them avoid violence. If they do not run the risk, it is easier to inflict violence on others. It is philosophically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, because you are removed from the real physical act. A robot can kill on your behalf without you being on the same continent. How does that reduce the tendency for violence ?
Either you are against violence or you're not - which is it ? People shouldn't have to die at all. Making machines do your dirty work does nothing to alleviate suffering from war. Making people actually do the work themselves changes the risk analysis and helps prevent unnecessary bloodshed.
Do you understand the concept of a fair fight ?
The idea that people need to die in order for you to feel better about voilence is indefensible.
This proves you don't understand what's been said.
So it's not a computer because it doesn't conform to the narrowest of definitions ? By any normal definition, a computer is a device (or person) that takes in data and uses that data to produce different data according to a fixed set of rules. Under this definition, the Antikythera mechanism is most definitely a computer. It handles IF / THEN rules mechanically. IF a certain marker is aligned with another distinct point, THEN a certain result is produced. IF that marker is aligned with a different point, it produces a different result(ELSIF). If it doesn't align with a marker at all you get your ELSE. The only limitation is that the inputs are restricted to those available on the mechanism.
I can think of simpler devices that can be called computers. Ever heard of a "go- no go" test ? By making a template or a mould that is exactly the dimensions you require, by applying a manufactured item to the "go - no go" test you can determine whether the item passes the dimensional requirements without further calculation. That is computing. The fixed rules are the template, the data is the manufactured item. What's more, it can be parallel computing by measuring more than one dimension at once.
If you define computing by what an electronic computer can do, you are missing the bigger picture.
Galileo was pushing the sun-centered universe and was persecuted by the Church for it.
That's not true. The Church were quite happy with the heliocentric version of the way the solar system worked - it meant that by using those calculations, they could determine the exact date of Easter much more precisely. Previously their system had Easter moving throughout the year unpredictably, whereas under a heliocentric system it could be pinned down to within a month.
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothesis (thus maintaining a facade of separation between science and the church). For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury[neutrality disputed], Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[90] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
So this tell us that by using a character called Simplicio as the geocentric supporter in the book, and making him appear an idiot, having Simplicio repeat the words of the Pope made the Pope look like an idiot. This is what damned Galileo, not heliocentrism.
Tip: Use Notepad++ for editing your hosts file instead of standard Notepad. The former preserves the lack-of-extent Hosts requires. The latter adds.txt, and you're stuck shuffling file names around.
No it doesn't. Why do you lie ? If you create a new file it will append.txt . You can open the existing hosts file by right clicking and selecting "open with" and then choose notepad. It doesn't append.txt to an existing file name.
I don't generally care anyway, as I can vi/etc/hosts which is much quicker than trying to remember where MS hid the file on their OS.
I have a dream about using lasers to project a 3D image in space by exiting particles in the air at the appropriate places. I don't think it'll work with "air" so maybe it will have to be in a gas filled chamber to begin with, but ultimately...
Have you ever heard of entropy ? What were those peat bogs composed of originally ? What has happened to that substance ? How much energy is contained in sandstone ?
Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?
You even say that energy goes to waste all the time, which is the exact point. If it's going to waste it's not just sitting there. How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?
Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like theft of other peoples land, rape of the natural environment, and military expansion into another country whose inhabitants are now illegally present in land that they used to be owners of.
American dream eh, the race for the bottom.
Same old, same old.
...
They steal from us, then claim we stole from them.
What goes around comes around. You have been warned. Never forget, the govt. ultimately works for US !
We grant the copyright, we can take it away. Do your worst
sorry, missed out the "fuck, yeah" !
Woo hoo, America blows something up - wake me up when you do something non-destructive.
...
awaiting flamebait mod
You clearly don't understand the ebook format at all. In the last 3 years, I have bought 3, read it, "three" ebooks - the rest of my 200 title collection were free, both in price and licence. Maybe you are part of the consumer culture, but either way you are wrong. Sony sells hardware, they are not a publisher. And I don't even own a sony device. Maybe you want everything "owned" by some corporate entity, you get what you pay for I guess. Personally, I want what I have already paid for, for nothing. There is nothing new worth having, at least so far.
fuck off prick.
This will probably sound like crap, but, if anybody out there has had to deal with heat in any real form, they would have found that the greatest heat was never at the surface. Light a flame - the heat isn't at the yellow outer edge, it isn't in the centre, it's precisely where the blue cone terminates. Why should the sun be any different. Yes I know it's a nuclear phenomenon, but FFS, the evidence stands for itself. Oh, sorry, this is Discovery science on /. these days. maybe I should swear and say wow a few times !
http://bash.org/?244321
There, that wasn't too hard was it !
Maybe that's why in the summary and the title it is written "island". Does the inclusion of quotation marks mean anything to you, or were you expecting fucking palm trees growing on it ?
shit for brains.
Why does the NYTimes article say things that are out of date, inaccurate and in some cases flat out wrong ? The interview with Myers is dated 2 July but this article from CERN itself dates from the 15th and does not specify any figures for the number of bad connections. They have to run the tests before they know how many bad connections there are, and that hasn't been completed.
So basically this is a fluff piece that takes various peoples statements out of context and tries to promote a problem that CERN itself does not support. Yes it's late, yes there are issues, but the title LHC struggles is hardly warranted.
Do you support young kids being allowed to go to the pub with their parents - at 10pm on a school night ?
Do you support the idea of kids being raised on a diet of chips and burgers ?
Do you think it's the kids fault if he/she steals, vandalises, or assaults others ? Or might there be a lack of parental guidance there ?
As usual, the lazy assholes in society fuck it up for the law abiding majority. Maybe if personal freedoms weren't so much demanded people might realise that if they brought a kid into the world, they have a duty to care for it and train it before they release it into the wild. But no, single mothers have a RIGHT to go drinking every night, they have a RIGHT to go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth. But somehow their duties to their kids and to society (by bringing up useful well mannered members of society) are forgotten in the constant stream of me, me, me.
What about my right not to be assaulted as I walk the streets ? What about my right not to have a paving slab dropped on to my vehicle as I pass under a bridge ? What about my right to get some sleep because I have to start work at 4am, but can't because some kid's having a party until 3am or later ?
I've never been imprisoned, I've worked and paid my dues, but somehow I have less rights than people who do what they want with no service to anybody but themselves.
Do us all a favour and don't come back - ever. It's your kind of attitude that has put us in this mess in the first place. You proved that in your first line. You're not interested in your kids welfare, you're only interested in YOUR welfare, no matter what it does to them or anybody else. I'm glad to see that the UK is exporting chavs, it can only be a growth industry.
If you want freedom, don't fuck your kids, don't claim the dole for ever, don't be noticed by the system. It works for most of us. You may as well say we shouldn't lock up criminals because they have a right to freedom. The people who will be housed in these places are already at the lowest point on the scale. In most cases they have no-one to blame but themselves. Should we just ignore them, or should we make an attempt to actively monitor what's going wrong ? You think they won't lie if you ask them to fill in a questionnaire ?
I'm so sorry to live in a country that breeds idiots who take everything they see in the news as gospel, and makes no effort to educate themselves. Or to put it another way, how much of a pay cut are you willing to take to make sure these poor people have a job to go to ? How many evenings a week will you give up to ensure that parents don't abuse/murder/prostitute their kids ? I'm betting not much in either case.
But a trite sound bite makes so much difference, thank you.
You obviously don't come from a country where nearly half of all adult males were killed in 2 world wars. And 99% of those who were killed were working class. The whole country paid with blood sweat and tears in the first half of the 20th century, and at the end of WW2, the people felt that things should be better. We elect the government to do things on our behalf, we give them lots of money to enable them to do it. Just because the system has been subverted by ne'r-do-wells does not diminish the concept. At least if the govt. has our money some wank banker can't go bust and take our insurance coverage with him. Do you really pay half your income in taxes to support welfare ? I don't. Maybe you are closer to the cut than you realise, hope you've got good insurance.
You think the wars were real ?
Interesting.
Chicken and Egg. The reason companies started paying less, and being able to pay less, is that in a relatively short time, the workforce went from being mostly male, to being roughly 60/40 male / female. Do you think that they suddenly had need for all these new workers ? Sudden extra orders to fulfill that needed an extra 40% more workers ?
The existing jobs were gradually split in order to provide extra places with less productivity per worker. Of course the companies are going to pay less. Add to this scenario the governments legal insistence that companies MUST employ certain fractions of women, disabled, ethnic minorities etc, and you quickly end up with a situation where there is not enough work to go around. You can now also add immigrant workers from the EU soaking up work at lower pay rates than the indigenous people.
You may see my post as misanthropic, mysogenous, or racist, but the simple fact is that you can only provide for a certain number of people by dividing what is available. You cannot run at a deficit on job availability or you end up with lower wages and unemployment. Just because the economists want to believe that continuous growth is indeed possible, it doesn't make it true. All that happens is what exists gets divided among a greater amount of people, driving down each individuals share. Welcome to the future. With global population rising, each earthling is due less and less as time goes on. You may think it's alright to rely on capitalism to allow you to climb over others heads to grab your "fair" share, but the number of people who are able to do that is vastly outnumbered by the increasingly devalued masses.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking I have a solution to this problem, but lack of solution does not mean lack of problem. We obviously can't confine women to the home like in the 1950s, we can't hire workers based on race, religion or (lack of) handicap, people do migrate to find better conditions for themselves and their families. But we also cannot continue to subdivide the available work and expect to maintain the same standard of living. The UK is flooded with jobs for office staff who basically do nothing other than input data to computers. This kind of work is precisely the kind of work that computers were supposed to make obsolete. But Britain Needs Jobs ! Companies get subsidies for hiring staff, so they create meaningless jobs to gain the subsidies.
I have (almost) always been a manual worker. I liked my life and the pay while not being stellar was almost invariably better than working at the lower levels in an office (twice the pay in most cases). Now immigration has increased, manual work has become less well paid and harder to find. So where's next ? The office job is paying half my old income level, do I give up my life and possessions to conform to the new income, or try to fight to the top ? Will it matter in the long run, or by the time I get there will the finish line have moved on ? These are not simple personal problems, they are important political problems, which most politicians are trying hard to ignore because they can't easily be solved and so will not make them look good. Capitalism is not going to solve this, and neither is the current crop of socialists, because they have morphed into capitalists "with a heart". Sometimes you need a firm hand on the tiller in government, because the people should not always get what they want. Sometimes it is better for everybody if the population are forced to accept changes they don't like, even if it costs them personally. I don't see any current politician with the balls to get the country out of this even if there were a relatively easy solution.
To swing back on topic, there is a reason why we have a chav culture, and whole generations of a family living on benefits - the govt. LIKES it that way ! Less active workers means less jobs needed, means higher pay for those who do work and the bonus is that it is all paid for by those who work. The unemployed still buy stuff, sti
Many years ago, I was watching TV with my dad when there was a familiar scene played on the screen - the one from vietnam where the young girl is running down the road with most of her skin burnt off her back. My dad said at the time that that was pornography. So define modern.
You are an idiot then. He said way more fragile than a biker on PCP. A biker on PCP is fragile, so he said way more fragile. Nothing wrong with that sentence, just your comprehension. Less chance than a snowball in hell does not mean you have more chance does it ?
So it's ok if the humans lives are lost only on the opposing side ? What if you're the aggressor ? What if both sides have robots ? If one side is defeated, what happens then ? Are these military robots going to run the occupation government, or just slaughter all humans ?
If there is no risk to your human forces in a war, there is no reason to avoid war. Do you think nuclear weapons have been unused for a half century because they save lives of your country men, or because their use is unconscionable and would result in massive civilian death on both sides ?
War is not a game, and making it into one does not solve any problems. If your country was invaded how do you fight back ? Do you set aside a field where your countrys force of 1000 robots does battle with the invaders 100,000 robots ? You will lose, and you have still been invaded. What you really do is fight a guerilla action and make it so expensive in lives and equipment that the invader has to withdraw. Have Afghanistan/Korea/Vietnam taught you nothing ? Or do you look forward to a Terminator type existence where you spend your life running and hiding from machines ? Last I heard, Al Quaida has no regular army, air force, ICBMs or the like but they sure made the US pucker its ass. Less than 20 people made the world flinch. Try defending against that with robots. I'm pretty sure that if the US invaded a country by using robots, you would get more of the same. There is nothing worse than a bully who refuses to meet you and fight on equal terms. Far from removing the human consequences, you would ensure that you were sought out and destroyed as punishment for your disrespect and cowardice.
You appear to be comfortable with the notion of sitting on your fat ass in the basement watching family guy and eating cheetos while a scene from the Terminator is played out in a foreign country, in an action run by your government on your behalf. Beware, what goes around, comes around.
6) The only way to win is not to play.
Humans have to take the risk of dying to make them avoid violence. If they do not run the risk, it is easier to inflict violence on others. It is philosophically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, because you are removed from the real physical act. A robot can kill on your behalf without you being on the same continent. How does that reduce the tendency for violence ?
Either you are against violence or you're not - which is it ? People shouldn't have to die at all. Making machines do your dirty work does nothing to alleviate suffering from war. Making people actually do the work themselves changes the risk analysis and helps prevent unnecessary bloodshed.
Do you understand the concept of a fair fight ?
This proves you don't understand what's been said.
I can think of simpler devices that can be called computers. Ever heard of a "go- no go" test ? By making a template or a mould that is exactly the dimensions you require, by applying a manufactured item to the "go - no go" test you can determine whether the item passes the dimensional requirements without further calculation. That is computing. The fixed rules are the template, the data is the manufactured item. What's more, it can be parallel computing by measuring more than one dimension at once.
If you define computing by what an electronic computer can do, you are missing the bigger picture.
Define compute
That's not true. The Church were quite happy with the heliocentric version of the way the solar system worked - it meant that by using those calculations, they could determine the exact date of Easter much more precisely. Previously their system had Easter moving throughout the year unpredictably, whereas under a heliocentric system it could be pinned down to within a month.
They persecuted Galileo because he had some un-politically correct things to say about the church and the Pope. That didn't stop them using the calculations though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothesis (thus maintaining a facade of separation between science and the church). For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury[neutrality disputed], Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[90] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
So this tell us that by using a character called Simplicio as the geocentric supporter in the book, and making him appear an idiot, having Simplicio repeat the words of the Pope made the Pope look like an idiot. This is what damned Galileo, not heliocentrism.
The Vatican Supported Astronomy
Did the Church Study Astronomy ?
No it doesn't. Why do you lie ? .txt . You can open the existing hosts file by right clicking and selecting "open with" and then choose notepad. It doesn't append .txt to an existing file name.
/etc/hosts which is much quicker than trying to remember where MS hid the file on their OS.
If you create a new file it will append
I don't generally care anyway, as I can vi
How about a holographic projector ?
...
I have a dream about using lasers to project a 3D image in space by exiting particles in the air at the appropriate places. I don't think it'll work with "air" so maybe it will have to be in a gas filled chamber to begin with, but ultimately
More rapid focusing will be needed though.
Yes, you fuckin fairy !
:(
(disclaimer - I performed the Pirates of Penzance, and Iolanthe at school,
unfortunately, it was an all boys school
)
Utter crap
Have you ever heard of entropy ? What were those peat bogs composed of originally ? What has happened to that substance ? How much energy is contained in sandstone ?
Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?
You even say that energy goes to waste all the time, which is the exact point. If it's going to waste it's not just sitting there. How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?
Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.