Not that big of a deal? Society treats you like a leper. Most people wouldn't shake your hand if you told them you were HIV positive. Many people are so afraid of HIV, they would rather throw away the cutlery you ate dinner with than "take a risk" and wash it, if they invited you to dinner at all. Intimacy is all but impossible. How many people would knowingly have (protected) sex with an HIV-infected partner? Most people would not dare kiss you if you are HIV positive, much less any other intimate activity. With appropriate protection, it is perfectly safe, but good luck convincing someone of that. The financial strain is huge. Repressive therapy is quite expensive, and even if the patient is not paying the costs, someone is. The majority of HIV positive patients worldwide can't afford a tenth of the medication they need. Without adequate treatment, these same people will develop AIDS within 10 years of infection, and then the medical bills skyrocket, as even a minor cold calls for hospitalization. HIV is a slippery target. Every day could be the day that the virus mutates again, and becomes resistant to current therapies. Those who contract this new variant could very well be dead before medicines catch up.
In short: Use protection, every time. That's all it takes. Would you play Russian roulette with a 1000-shot revolver? I hope not. Knowing only 1 in a thousand people dies of AIDS is no comfort when you are that 1.
in the past 8 months (when i bought the new eth card), I have upgraded from 2.6.10 to 2.6.12 to 2.6.14, and the entire time, I have been using the same exact kernel module sources, provided by the manufacturer, for my gb ethernet card. minor kernel version updates do not break compatibility with any existing code, in my experience. that is akin to saying you will need new drivers every time microsoft releases a new service pack or critical update. it has much more to do with hardware manufacturers not giving a shit about anyone outside the 90%+ windows market share... i'd be happy with them at least releasing hardware specs (that they have already created, anyhow) if they are unwilling to write drivers for linux, but alas, they often refuse to give us that much.
So I suppose you are on the hiring committee? Or at least a regular interviewer? If not, how do you know there were more qualified applicants? In fact, how do you know there were any other applicants? I have noticed a similar trend towards hiring of less competent employees, and I am privy to hiring information. In our case, it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the overall expectations of applicants, both in required skills and pay. One simply cannot hire (or retain) brilliant, motivated, well-suited employees if (a) they don't apply, or (b) they expect exhorbitant salaries. It sounds to me like you, or at least, the majority of your coworkers are simply racist. If every time they meet a new hire, who happens to be a minority, and assume the person is going to be incompetent, that is what we call racism, my friend. If I meet 10 arrogant caucasian sysadmins, should I then assume that all caucasian people are arrogant, and therefore shun them? Of course not, you say... so where's the difference? Perhaps I have a different perspective because I live in a place where there is no majority. Growing up, no more than about a quarter of the people I met were of the same ethnicity, and in that sort of environment, it is hard to develop a racist mindset, I suppose. Maybe the best I can hope for is that some day this sort of diversity pervades most of the world, and consequently smothers racism, but that's far more optomistic than my observations support.
your faith in the US judicial process leads me to believe you haven't read your RSS feeds lately. Many US citizens have been arrested merely based on their associations lately; some have been sent to Gitmo, where the Geneva accords are considered suggestion, not policy. I would not be surprised if subscribing to a radical Islam RSS feed would get you arrested and questioned within a matter of days. In fact, anyone brave enough to try this and find out for the rest of us?
How about this: set up a bunch of mini-itx or similar low-power machines with 9 250GB PATA drives (and a single smaller drive for OS install), then use software raid under Linux to configure them as a single RAID-5 array (roughly 2TB) and set up an NFS server on the machine to share the array. Then set up a couple of controllers (for redundancy) that mount all the NFS shares and turn them into a linear or striped array(or RAID-1 for added data security). Then the controllers would be able to present a share using NFS, SMB, or whatever you need it to, that have a capacity that scales seamlessly... all you have to do is add more 2TB nodes to it. Obviously the details are flexible, like making the nodes RAID-1 instead of RAID-5 (and dropping them to 8 250GB drives for a round 1TB per node), but this should give you exactly what you're looking for. Your cost per node would simply be the mini-itx mobo, memory, 4 channel IDE controller card, and hard drives, and cost per controller would be practically any computer with high speed network interfaces (I'd recommend something with 2x Gb LAN at least, maybe Gb out and 10Gb to the HDD farm).
First a dsclaimer: I have violated many copyrights in the past, but am trying to go clean (my reasons are my own). Now, on to the part that will get me tarred and feathered around here.
You say restitution should be percent based? So if I steal $1B from Microsoft's cash fund (roughly 1/60th at last report I saw) I should pay them back 1/60th of my liquid asset worth (which would be roughly $1B at that point)? Hell, I'd turn a good enough profit to make it very much worth my while, morals be damned. However, if this were the way legal systems worked, everyone would have the same amount of money (corporations and citizens alike) and the economy would collapse. No one would work, no one would try to get ahead, no corporation would be able to finance research and development... we may as well nuke ourselves now and get it over with.
Thank God! Someone else who sees Mr. Kern as I do... a man who needs an excuse for being unwilling to apply himself and instead plays the victim, turning the whole world against him. I too flunked out of school the first time, as I only put as much effort as I had in high school, where it was a simple act to get ridiculously high SAT scores, graduate with honors, earn AP credits, etc. After a few years of maturity, I decided it was time to really work for it, and I re-enrolled. I've been going for 3.5 years now, with my fresh outlook, and while my GPA wavers around the 2.5 area, I know it was me that was the problem, not the program (especially since it is the same school, and professors, as it was when I flunked out of the program).
But how costly is a RAID-5 solution on a Windows box? You're not going to be playing Half-Life 2 on your Linux box any time soon, so you're going to need a hardware RAID-5 controller. When it comes to games, or Windows installs in general, I also run my setup off a striped array (2 disk). If something goes down, I can restore the game installs and OS from my file server, which _is_ RAID-5. It takes about an hour, unattended, to restore the images over gigabit LAN... one hour every 3-4 months (while I sleep) is well worth saving a few hundred dollars buying a PCI RAID controller card for my Windows box, which would probably saturate the PCI bus before I saw max gains anyhow (if I were to run RAID-5 from it, with 4 or more disks).
You ASSume Windows. Nobody running a secure environment would use windows, unless it's just confidential.
Actually, I've used fairly standard Dells running Windows XP Pro in secret level environments. When done right, a windows box can be as secure to physical tampering as any other OS, and as public networks are a huge no-no anyway, it matters not whether they can be compromised remotely (many of our machines are networked, but it is a standalone network with only secret level machines connected (and able to connect for that matter, by various means).
Wow, someone is awful ready to jump down others' throats this morning... forget your morning coffee again, jimi? For starters, perhaps the poster was merely going on a tangent by bringing in the 2x4 on the tails of I beams... secondly, I'd vote a 2x4 makes a much better weapon than an I beam... ever try swinging an I beam fast enough to hit an adversary? Hell, ever try moving an I beam at all?
unfortunately for your theory, photons contain no mass, as their energy exists entirely as kinetic energy. Infinite photons would contain zero mass, as would a single photon. Now, on the other hand, if what you meant was gather enough photons so that you might end up with enough _energy_ to cause damage, you would simply have a laser, which works much as you described.
Re:What about Han you insensitive clod?
on
How Lightsabers Work
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's a world of difference between using a lightsaber as a glorified cutting torch and wielding it well in combat (see: not slicing yourself open). However, Han Solo is also a rogue, so his scoundrel's luck should be factored in as well. He should have the chance of surviving, unscathed, any potentially dangerous activity.
If this was meant to be an April Fool's joke, they could have at least made up a _new_ technology. As it is, ATA passwords are as old as ATA hard drives (which is to say, ancient). Thus, it is just another/. useless article day.
Then why haven't they been shot? Perhaps because they would either violate the Geneva Convention or they would be committing first degree murder under civilian law. It is that cut and dry.
And for the record, activities that went on prior to the adoption of the Geneva Convention (Oct 1950) should not be held as example where the Convention may be ignored.
I answered a b, so here's a summary for any blind patriots that may come across this post: I'm obviously a terrorist and should be shot on sight. My rights as a U.S. citizen do not matter, because I do not believe, as an article of faith, what you believe.
For those who prefer to think for themselves: I wish it were that easy, hcob (hopefully I didn't lose you at part 1). Last I checked, one doesn't simply "join Congress" like it's a chess club. There is a process that requires, among other things, gaining popularity with the majority of the citizens you wish to represent. I have found that my beliefs are very much NOT in line with the beliefs of the majority of my peers, especially considering my state (Hawaii) has a very high military presence. My current representatives do not care about the opinions of the extreme minority, and in general, hold the opinions of my generation in very poor regard due to dismal voter turnout. I have accepted, as a citizen of the U.S., that we are a nation governed by the majority, and I would not wish that changed. My only goal is to change the majority opinion to rational one, rather than an emotional one. I feel that is a good start for us "a b" people.
I would wager a terrorist is - someone who blows up a sky scraper full of civilians by crashing a couple of planes into it killing thousands of lives, more if possible, who have never done anything to the person or his organization.
I suppose this is fundamentally different from dropping kiloton bombs onto cities and decimating the homes of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan? I suppose this is not at all the same as the wholesale murder of countless Iraqi citizens fighting their own civil war (the ones U.S. media labels "insurrectionists")?
These terrorists are not trying to overthrow our gov't because we are oppressing them.
So I suppose you're saying U.S. troops attempted to (and suceeded in such attempts) overthrow Saddam Hussein because he was oppressing them? I wasn't aware that U.S. citizens were oppressed by Saddam's tyranny. Or perhaps you're saying the Iraqi people were trying to overthrow Saddam... in that case, what the hell were U.S. troops there for? Moral support?
I didn't realize the formal declaration of war by congress was needed to legitmize our actions in the Gulf
So, if the U.S. is allowed to invade countries without warning, and without reason, shouldn't the rest of the world be allowed to do the same? Shouldn't Iraq, for example, been allowed to invade Kuwait and destroy their oil production facilities? We are following manifest destiny, correct? Therefore, if any country has the means to subjugate another, they should feel free to do so. Or perhaps Americans, who preach equality and justice for all, really mean equality and justice for all Americans, and fuck-all to everyone else.
The Patriot Act was approved by Congress.
Sorry, I suppose I worded that in such a way that you may have felt I was placing blame on the President alone. Jokes regarding Bush's intelligence aside, I didn't mean to make it sound like Bush orchestrated this mess alone. He could not have been solely responsible for such atrocities... for such heinous crimes to be committed on such a large scale requires many evil, selfish, or misguided individuals pooling their talents, be it Ashcroft, Congress, the President, George H.W. Bush, and any other contributors.
Your naivete is touching. You think a nation's entire military mobilizes against the recommendations of both the UN and Congress (the body that supposedly limits the President's power), openly invades not one, but two countries, spearheads a series of legislations that increasingly edge everyday life towards martial law, yet orders to torture these non-persons being detained at Gitmo didn't come down from the top? I think this morale-breaking tactic fits quite well with the ideology of the Bush war machine. While we're on the subject, what exactly is a terrorist? Someone who enters a foreign country, attempts to overthrow the government of that country, kills citizens of that country without declaring war, tortures hostages that they may capture, etc? Funny, that sounds a lot like the actions of the United States armed forces recently. Perhaps I missed some distinguishing characteristic of terrorists, but perhaps you should hold "zero sympathy" for United States troops killed and tortured, since their actions do not seem very different from every other terrorist group blind patriots love to hate. Either you give them all rights, or you strip them all of their humanity... which will it be?
Funny you should point that out -- I'm going for an engineering degree nowadays. Just to clarify, though, I still say pi is roughly 22/7. It's so much more elegant than plain old 3.
As I have already requested (in a different reply to a different on of your almost entirely redundant posts) a full proof for me to dismantle, I will keep my response to a few key problems (see: fatal flaws) I see in this postulate.
(A) How do you propose to measure velocity using only measurements of the time dimension? Last I checked, velocity is defined as (spatial units translated)/(temporal units translated).
(B) If we simply look at this in two dimensions, restraining spatial coordinates to the x direction, and our second dimension being time, your theory would have the origin of the t axis sliding up and down, while the x axis remains stationary. While this will change the appearance of our visual rendering of the coordinate system (for example, we may draw the x axis intersecting the t axis at t=-4s, for instance), it is simply smoke and mirrors. An event at (t1,6) will always be 4m away from an event at (t1,10). An event at (t2,-5) will always be |t2-t3| away from (t3,-5), no matter how much you shift the numerical origin of your t axis. My point is this: any coordinate system is relative to an arbitrarily chosen origin. While you may renumber your t axis as often as you wish, and thus have it "slide" to and fro relative to your other axes, the relative spacetime differences between events will remain the same.
(C) Sorry, ran a bit long on (B), so i'll make this my last point. This point is one of semantics. You state that the time dimension expands as a spherically symmetric wavefront through space. Thus, you feel the time dimension has spatial components. Therefore, your time "dimension" is not a dimension at all, as it contains an x, y, and z component, each which have a _set_ relationship to one another (they define a sphere, as you explicitly state above). For time to be its own dimension, it must be possible for any relationship of x, y, and z to exist at any point t. Perhaps you stated this in a way you did not intend, or perhaps you simply can't wrap your head around four dimensions.
In any case, please either correct any mistakes or misinterpretations I have made, or shelf your theory until you can make the math work.
Slashdot Mirror
Games, my friend. It is the only reason to run windows.
Not that big of a deal?
Society treats you like a leper. Most people wouldn't shake your hand if you told them you were HIV positive. Many people are so afraid of HIV, they would rather throw away the cutlery you ate dinner with than "take a risk" and wash it, if they invited you to dinner at all.
Intimacy is all but impossible. How many people would knowingly have (protected) sex with an HIV-infected partner? Most people would not dare kiss you if you are HIV positive, much less any other intimate activity. With appropriate protection, it is perfectly safe, but good luck convincing someone of that.
The financial strain is huge. Repressive therapy is quite expensive, and even if the patient is not paying the costs, someone is. The majority of HIV positive patients worldwide can't afford a tenth of the medication they need. Without adequate treatment, these same people will develop AIDS within 10 years of infection, and then the medical bills skyrocket, as even a minor cold calls for hospitalization.
HIV is a slippery target. Every day could be the day that the virus mutates again, and becomes resistant to current therapies. Those who contract this new variant could very well be dead before medicines catch up.
In short: Use protection, every time. That's all it takes. Would you play Russian roulette with a 1000-shot revolver? I hope not. Knowing only 1 in a thousand people dies of AIDS is no comfort when you are that 1.
in the past 8 months (when i bought the new eth card), I have upgraded from 2.6.10 to 2.6.12 to 2.6.14, and the entire time, I have been using the same exact kernel module sources, provided by the manufacturer, for my gb ethernet card. minor kernel version updates do not break compatibility with any existing code, in my experience. that is akin to saying you will need new drivers every time microsoft releases a new service pack or critical update. it has much more to do with hardware manufacturers not giving a shit about anyone outside the 90%+ windows market share... i'd be happy with them at least releasing hardware specs (that they have already created, anyhow) if they are unwilling to write drivers for linux, but alas, they often refuse to give us that much.
So I suppose you are on the hiring committee? Or at least a regular interviewer? If not, how do you know there were more qualified applicants? In fact, how do you know there were any other applicants? I have noticed a similar trend towards hiring of less competent employees, and I am privy to hiring information. In our case, it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the overall expectations of applicants, both in required skills and pay. One simply cannot hire (or retain) brilliant, motivated, well-suited employees if (a) they don't apply, or (b) they expect exhorbitant salaries.
It sounds to me like you, or at least, the majority of your coworkers are simply racist. If every time they meet a new hire, who happens to be a minority, and assume the person is going to be incompetent, that is what we call racism, my friend. If I meet 10 arrogant caucasian sysadmins, should I then assume that all caucasian people are arrogant, and therefore shun them? Of course not, you say... so where's the difference?
Perhaps I have a different perspective because I live in a place where there is no majority. Growing up, no more than about a quarter of the people I met were of the same ethnicity, and in that sort of environment, it is hard to develop a racist mindset, I suppose. Maybe the best I can hope for is that some day this sort of diversity pervades most of the world, and consequently smothers racism, but that's far more optomistic than my observations support.
Anyone know if there is a verb for the word architect (other than paraphrasing, like "designs")? Perhaps "archetypes"?
your faith in the US judicial process leads me to believe you haven't read your RSS feeds lately. Many US citizens have been arrested merely based on their associations lately; some have been sent to Gitmo, where the Geneva accords are considered suggestion, not policy. I would not be surprised if subscribing to a radical Islam RSS feed would get you arrested and questioned within a matter of days. In fact, anyone brave enough to try this and find out for the rest of us?
How about this: set up a bunch of mini-itx or similar low-power machines with 9 250GB PATA drives (and a single smaller drive for OS install), then use software raid under Linux to configure them as a single RAID-5 array (roughly 2TB) and set up an NFS server on the machine to share the array. Then set up a couple of controllers (for redundancy) that mount all the NFS shares and turn them into a linear or striped array(or RAID-1 for added data security). Then the controllers would be able to present a share using NFS, SMB, or whatever you need it to, that have a capacity that scales seamlessly... all you have to do is add more 2TB nodes to it. Obviously the details are flexible, like making the nodes RAID-1 instead of RAID-5 (and dropping them to 8 250GB drives for a round 1TB per node), but this should give you exactly what you're looking for. Your cost per node would simply be the mini-itx mobo, memory, 4 channel IDE controller card, and hard drives, and cost per controller would be practically any computer with high speed network interfaces (I'd recommend something with 2x Gb LAN at least, maybe Gb out and 10Gb to the HDD farm).
First a dsclaimer: I have violated many copyrights in the past, but am trying to go clean (my reasons are my own). Now, on to the part that will get me tarred and feathered around here.
You say restitution should be percent based? So if I steal $1B from Microsoft's cash fund (roughly 1/60th at last report I saw) I should pay them back 1/60th of my liquid asset worth (which would be roughly $1B at that point)? Hell, I'd turn a good enough profit to make it very much worth my while, morals be damned. However, if this were the way legal systems worked, everyone would have the same amount of money (corporations and citizens alike) and the economy would collapse. No one would work, no one would try to get ahead, no corporation would be able to finance research and development... we may as well nuke ourselves now and get it over with.
Thank God! Someone else who sees Mr. Kern as I do... a man who needs an excuse for being unwilling to apply himself and instead plays the victim, turning the whole world against him. I too flunked out of school the first time, as I only put as much effort as I had in high school, where it was a simple act to get ridiculously high SAT scores, graduate with honors, earn AP credits, etc. After a few years of maturity, I decided it was time to really work for it, and I re-enrolled. I've been going for 3.5 years now, with my fresh outlook, and while my GPA wavers around the 2.5 area, I know it was me that was the problem, not the program (especially since it is the same school, and professors, as it was when I flunked out of the program).
But how costly is a RAID-5 solution on a Windows box? You're not going to be playing Half-Life 2 on your Linux box any time soon, so you're going to need a hardware RAID-5 controller. When it comes to games, or Windows installs in general, I also run my setup off a striped array (2 disk). If something goes down, I can restore the game installs and OS from my file server, which _is_ RAID-5. It takes about an hour, unattended, to restore the images over gigabit LAN... one hour every 3-4 months (while I sleep) is well worth saving a few hundred dollars buying a PCI RAID controller card for my Windows box, which would probably saturate the PCI bus before I saw max gains anyhow (if I were to run RAID-5 from it, with 4 or more disks).
You ASSume Windows. Nobody running a secure environment would use windows, unless it's just confidential.
Actually, I've used fairly standard Dells running Windows XP Pro in secret level environments. When done right, a windows box can be as secure to physical tampering as any other OS, and as public networks are a huge no-no anyway, it matters not whether they can be compromised remotely (many of our machines are networked, but it is a standalone network with only secret level machines connected (and able to connect for that matter, by various means).
Wow, someone is awful ready to jump down others' throats this morning... forget your morning coffee again, jimi? For starters, perhaps the poster was merely going on a tangent by bringing in the 2x4 on the tails of I beams... secondly, I'd vote a 2x4 makes a much better weapon than an I beam... ever try swinging an I beam fast enough to hit an adversary? Hell, ever try moving an I beam at all?
unfortunately for your theory, photons contain no mass, as their energy exists entirely as kinetic energy. Infinite photons would contain zero mass, as would a single photon. Now, on the other hand, if what you meant was gather enough photons so that you might end up with enough _energy_ to cause damage, you would simply have a laser, which works much as you described.
There's a world of difference between using a lightsaber as a glorified cutting torch and wielding it well in combat (see: not slicing yourself open). However, Han Solo is also a rogue, so his scoundrel's luck should be factored in as well. He should have the chance of surviving, unscathed, any potentially dangerous activity.
If this was meant to be an April Fool's joke, they could have at least made up a _new_ technology. As it is, ATA passwords are as old as ATA hard drives (which is to say, ancient). Thus, it is just another /. useless article day.
Then why haven't they been shot? Perhaps because they would either violate the Geneva Convention or they would be committing first degree murder under civilian law. It is that cut and dry.
And for the record, activities that went on prior to the adoption of the Geneva Convention (Oct 1950) should not be held as example where the Convention may be ignored.
I answered a b, so here's a summary for any blind patriots that may come across this post:
I'm obviously a terrorist and should be shot on sight. My rights as a U.S. citizen do not matter, because I do not believe, as an article of faith, what you believe.
For those who prefer to think for themselves:
I wish it were that easy, hcob (hopefully I didn't lose you at part 1). Last I checked, one doesn't simply "join Congress" like it's a chess club. There is a process that requires, among other things, gaining popularity with the majority of the citizens you wish to represent. I have found that my beliefs are very much NOT in line with the beliefs of the majority of my peers, especially considering my state (Hawaii) has a very high military presence. My current representatives do not care about the opinions of the extreme minority, and in general, hold the opinions of my generation in very poor regard due to dismal voter turnout. I have accepted, as a citizen of the U.S., that we are a nation governed by the majority, and I would not wish that changed. My only goal is to change the majority opinion to rational one, rather than an emotional one. I feel that is a good start for us "a b" people.
I would wager a terrorist is - someone who blows up a sky scraper full of civilians by crashing a couple of planes into it killing thousands of lives, more if possible, who have never done anything to the person or his organization.
I suppose this is fundamentally different from dropping kiloton bombs onto cities and decimating the homes of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan? I suppose this is not at all the same as the wholesale murder of countless Iraqi citizens fighting their own civil war (the ones U.S. media labels "insurrectionists")?
These terrorists are not trying to overthrow our gov't because we are oppressing them.
So I suppose you're saying U.S. troops attempted to (and suceeded in such attempts) overthrow Saddam Hussein because he was oppressing them? I wasn't aware that U.S. citizens were oppressed by Saddam's tyranny. Or perhaps you're saying the Iraqi people were trying to overthrow Saddam... in that case, what the hell were U.S. troops there for? Moral support?
I didn't realize the formal declaration of war by congress was needed to legitmize our actions in the Gulf
So, if the U.S. is allowed to invade countries without warning, and without reason, shouldn't the rest of the world be allowed to do the same? Shouldn't Iraq, for example, been allowed to invade Kuwait and destroy their oil production facilities? We are following manifest destiny, correct? Therefore, if any country has the means to subjugate another, they should feel free to do so. Or perhaps Americans, who preach equality and justice for all, really mean equality and justice for all Americans, and fuck-all to everyone else.
The Patriot Act was approved by Congress.
Sorry, I suppose I worded that in such a way that you may have felt I was placing blame on the President alone. Jokes regarding Bush's intelligence aside, I didn't mean to make it sound like Bush orchestrated this mess alone. He could not have been solely responsible for such atrocities... for such heinous crimes to be committed on such a large scale requires many evil, selfish, or misguided individuals pooling their talents, be it Ashcroft, Congress, the President, George H.W. Bush, and any other contributors.
Your naivete is touching. You think a nation's entire military mobilizes against the recommendations of both the UN and Congress (the body that supposedly limits the President's power), openly invades not one, but two countries, spearheads a series of legislations that increasingly edge everyday life towards martial law, yet orders to torture these non-persons being detained at Gitmo didn't come down from the top? I think this morale-breaking tactic fits quite well with the ideology of the Bush war machine.
While we're on the subject, what exactly is a terrorist? Someone who enters a foreign country, attempts to overthrow the government of that country, kills citizens of that country without declaring war, tortures hostages that they may capture, etc? Funny, that sounds a lot like the actions of the United States armed forces recently. Perhaps I missed some distinguishing characteristic of terrorists, but perhaps you should hold "zero sympathy" for United States troops killed and tortured, since their actions do not seem very different from every other terrorist group blind patriots love to hate. Either you give them all rights, or you strip them all of their humanity... which will it be?
I second that.
holding down ctrl while scrolling your mouse wheel does it too.
Funny you should point that out -- I'm going for an engineering degree nowadays. Just to clarify, though, I still say pi is roughly 22/7. It's so much more elegant than plain old 3.
Dessert could apply just as well to that statement: it is typically good-tasting yet entirely lacking in any content.
Or not rich enough to spend long periods of time unemployed... *counter-jab*
As I have already requested (in a different reply to a different on of your almost entirely redundant posts) a full proof for me to dismantle, I will keep my response to a few key problems (see: fatal flaws) I see in this postulate.
(A) How do you propose to measure velocity using only measurements of the time dimension? Last I checked, velocity is defined as (spatial units translated)/(temporal units translated).
(B) If we simply look at this in two dimensions, restraining spatial coordinates to the x direction, and our second dimension being time, your theory would have the origin of the t axis sliding up and down, while the x axis remains stationary. While this will change the appearance of our visual rendering of the coordinate system (for example, we may draw the x axis intersecting the t axis at t=-4s, for instance), it is simply smoke and mirrors. An event at (t1,6) will always be 4m away from an event at (t1,10). An event at (t2,-5) will always be |t2-t3| away from (t3,-5), no matter how much you shift the numerical origin of your t axis. My point is this: any coordinate system is relative to an arbitrarily chosen origin. While you may renumber your t axis as often as you wish, and thus have it "slide" to and fro relative to your other axes, the relative spacetime differences between events will remain the same.
(C) Sorry, ran a bit long on (B), so i'll make this my last point. This point is one of semantics. You state that the time dimension expands as a spherically symmetric wavefront through space. Thus, you feel the time dimension has spatial components. Therefore, your time "dimension" is not a dimension at all, as it contains an x, y, and z component, each which have a _set_ relationship to one another (they define a sphere, as you explicitly state above). For time to be its own dimension, it must be possible for any relationship of x, y, and z to exist at any point t. Perhaps you stated this in a way you did not intend, or perhaps you simply can't wrap your head around four dimensions.
In any case, please either correct any mistakes or misinterpretations I have made, or shelf your theory until you can make the math work.