At least that way, you're less likely to get infected. As safe as I can be, I simply don't trust banner advertisements, and adware/malware is one reason.
The word "rate" is the confusing part. Like I said though, more massive objects will reach their destination quicker than less massive objects, even if on a very small scale.
I don't know how relative time fits into all of this. I don't know if the formulas I'm told are adjusted for relative time, or if the formulas assume a universal time constant. I believe time slows down near massive objects.
(Hopefully I didn't make any typos while copying this from a piece of paper.)
Object A is 2kg Object B is 1kg Object C is 1kg
Trial 1: The center of gravity of Object A is 10m from the center of gravity of Object C. Trial 2: The center of gravity of Object B is 10m from the center of gravity of Object C.
Force of Gravity = 6.67 * 10- mass1 * mass2 / distance
Below are some of the formulas. I haven't been taught how to derive the bottom one. If you do a couple trials, objects A and C in trial one, and objects B and C in trial two, with A being more massive than B, with center of gravities being dropped from the same distance, the more massive one will reach it's destination "sooner" than the less massive one. This is math. It's provable. I need to go to sleep now, so maybe later I'll be posting the complete example with trials.
Force of Gravity = 6.67 * 10- mass1 * mass2 / distance
distance = ½ * acceleration * time time = (2 * distance / acceleration) ^ ½
Gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate? What does this mean? My understanding is that two objects of difference masses will fall at different rates. More massive objects will reach their destination quicker than the less massive objects. This has been mathematically proven. I even had a physics teacher help me write out the hypothetical trials.
(As to whether hotter objects fall faster than colder objects, I don't know yet. That's something else I've been wondering.)
Some people already knew this. Thank goodness it's making the news though. Some terms to Google for in regards to this include: red shift, speed of light, vacuum.
It doesn't seem like we have much in the way of freedom of religion. If a religion, a church, is denied the ability to marry two homosexuals, allowed in their doctrine, or perhaps perform polygamy, that really says a lot about what the government thinks about the 1st Amendment.
Doesn't the U.K. have a court system? Don't those people deserve to go to court before having anything done to them? The BPI isn't even a government agency or anything, right?
What I mean is this. The first 10 Amendments, those are the Bill of Rights. Those essentially tell us what rights we have as citizens.
The Constitution is what limits the government, what they are restricted to, so they don't overstep their bounds. Don't 11+ tend to do more with the Constitution than being something like the Bill of Rights?
What I mean is this. Are any of the first 10 Amendments located anywhere in any of the articles of the Constitution, or are they essentially a seperate document?
Did Amendments 11+ essentially modify parts of the Constitution?
Is it legal to amend the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights are seperate from the Constitution, correct? The Bill of Rights are in and of themselves, correct? Didn't we come one Senate vote away from essentially amending the 1st Amendment (1st of the Bill of Rights) concerning flag desecration? Flag burning and other forms of desecration do no harm (unless one is running down a street waving a flaming piece of cloth and then drops it on some dry grass and starts a forest fire). Common law versus political law.
I enjoyed school myself, but yes, school needs to be reformed. Below are some ideas.
History classes can change their format. Assign chapter(s) to read overnight (between school days). Teacher lectures for a few days or so. Discussions amongst the whole class are present during lectures. Teacher could hand out worksheets, and the teacher could have a master worksheet with all the answers. Students could be given "participation" points for answering a question correctly. This replaces traditional homework by having homework done in class as a class all aloud. Then test grades make up a majority of the overall grade.
Is this giving them authorization to look without warrants? If so, it's unlawful. No amount of legislation, short of amending the Bill of Rights, will give them this authority.
Is this simply giving them access to the system easier once they have furnished the warrant? If so, let me say this. How many here would be okay if the government required lock makers, for your front doors of your house, to have a built in backdoor type thing in which they could easily unlock if they have the warrant to enter?
Since the cell phones tend to be the property of the students (whereas the lockers would be the property of the school), the school has no right to search a student's piece of property.
Maybe they have the right to search a student's piece of property if there is just cause that a crime is being committed, but as for what the procedure is to take, I don't know. Depending on what it is, probably contact the police, contact the parents, and perform a search on the cell phone if the cell phone, which is student property, is physically located on the campus at the time. I think the same can go for backpacks and whatnot. (I'd have to think about all of this though.)
While reading some Tesla information, it did come across my mind that it should be physically possible, if figured out how, to do the stuff Superman does, more or less.
I never heard of that before. Thanks for letting me know.
Hypothetically, if a country doesn't want to go along with a world wide standards organization, couldn't they break off and do their own thing inside their own geographical boarders?
Each country could essentially create their own internet if they don't want to be part of The Internet.
It was created by the American government if I understand everything, so maybe The Internet should remain in the hands of the American government. Television, telephones, etc., are different since each country has control over their broadcasting licenses/frequencies/whatever and has control over their own telephone lines within the country. Like American's country code for telephones would be 1.
There's also the saying that if it's not broke, don't fix it.
Why not keep it with ICANN, but do some restructuring? For example, allow any country with a significant population, let us say 10 million, to opt in to have their country elect a non-political figure (could never have been a politician in their life or even attempted to run) onto this board for a period of 5 years.
Did the students sign any sort of agreement/contract stating they will not engage in this type of activity? I am not sure how legal the university's move is. I would imagine that the university has no authority over the existence of the site, but they do have authority to suspend scholarships, etc. for what is posted on the site. If they post something defaming to the university for example, then maybe they can suspend their scholarships, etc.
The university is doing this as a scare tactic I bet. If all the athletes were kicked off the team, the university would probably lose a lot of revenue if like their football team had zero players on it. Cannot sell tickets that way.
It is definitely a frivolous lawsuit. MySpace isn't liable in any way as I can see it. The only possible way they'd be liable is if they made some sort of false claim that they can 100% protect children.
There will be winners in this lawsuit though. By how it makes it to the media, it might make parents more aware that they should be monitoring what their kids are doing, whether it's online or offline. More winners will be the lawyers from both sides, which I assume get paid whether or not they win the case.
Less likely usernames would be used to catch the spam. Less likely usernames as in names people are less likely to use, but a dictionary attack would still hit. SpamMeAndDie21@domain would be one that people probably don't have.
You've obviously misread what I said. I said dummy e-mail addresses. The e-mail provider would have something like emailme29@domain and spamandban32@domain and so on. A bunch of stuff that a dictionary attacker would hit and get banned maybe for 2 weeks.
Websites, guestbooks, and forums shouldn't publically display e-mail addresses. Maybe showing them in a picture file, a graphic, would make it a bit more difficult and could be an okay compromise.
People shouldn't sign up for unwise things lest they use a safety e-mail address where junk can end up at. The creation of services, like paid to surf sites and other sites that promise rewards, can sucker people into signing up to only sell their lists to spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
At least that way, you're less likely to get infected. As safe as I can be, I simply don't trust banner advertisements, and adware/malware is one reason.
The word "rate" is the confusing part. Like I said though, more massive objects will reach their destination quicker than less massive objects, even if on a very small scale.
I don't know how relative time fits into all of this. I don't know if the formulas I'm told are adjusted for relative time, or if the formulas assume a universal time constant. I believe time slows down near massive objects.
Let us say we're going to do an experiment on the Moon, which has no atmosphere.
We're going to do two seperate trials so the objects don't affect each other at once.
Both objects have same volume.
Trial one, we're going to drop a 1 kilogram bowling ball 1 mile away from the Moon's surface.
Trial two, we're going to drop a bowling ball that has the same mass as Jupiter.
Trial two, both will hit each other in less time than trial one would. By the word trial, I mean seperate experiments/whatever.
(Hopefully I didn't make any typos while copying this from a piece of paper.)
Object A is 2kg
Object B is 1kg
Object C is 1kg
Trial 1: The center of gravity of Object A is 10m from the center of gravity of Object C.
Trial 2: The center of gravity of Object B is 10m from the center of gravity of Object C.
Force of Gravity = 6.67 * 10- mass1 * mass2 / distance
Trial 1: Fg = 6.67 * 10- * 2kg * 1kg / (10m) = 1.334*10^-12 Newtons
Trial 2: Fg = 6.67 * 10- * 1kg * 1kg / (10m) = 6.67*10^-13 Newtons
distance = ½ * acceleration * time
time = (2 * distance / acceleration) ^ ½
Trial 1: t = (2 * 6.67m / 1.334*10^-12m/s) ^ ½ = 10^6 seconds
Trial 2: t = (2 * 5m / 6.67*10^-13m/s) ^ ½ = 1.22*10^6 seconds
Below are some of the formulas. I haven't been taught how to derive the bottom one. If you do a couple trials, objects A and C in trial one, and objects B and C in trial two, with A being more massive than B, with center of gravities being dropped from the same distance, the more massive one will reach it's destination "sooner" than the less massive one. This is math. It's provable. I need to go to sleep now, so maybe later I'll be posting the complete example with trials.
Force of Gravity = 6.67 * 10- mass1 * mass2 / distance
distance = ½ * acceleration * time
time = (2 * distance / acceleration) ^ ½
Gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate? What does this mean? My understanding is that two objects of difference masses will fall at different rates. More massive objects will reach their destination quicker than the less massive objects. This has been mathematically proven. I even had a physics teacher help me write out the hypothetical trials.
(As to whether hotter objects fall faster than colder objects, I don't know yet. That's something else I've been wondering.)
Some people already knew this. Thank goodness it's making the news though. Some terms to Google for in regards to this include: red shift, speed of light, vacuum.
If you mean a church has the right to deny marriage to anyone, then that is true.
I see you aren't familiar with the style of writing I was using.
I'd have to research the origin more then.
It doesn't seem like we have much in the way of freedom of religion. If a religion, a church, is denied the ability to marry two homosexuals, allowed in their doctrine, or perhaps perform polygamy, that really says a lot about what the government thinks about the 1st Amendment.
Doesn't the U.K. have a court system? Don't those people deserve to go to court before having anything done to them? The BPI isn't even a government agency or anything, right?
What I mean is this. The first 10 Amendments, those are the Bill of Rights. Those essentially tell us what rights we have as citizens.
The Constitution is what limits the government, what they are restricted to, so they don't overstep their bounds. Don't 11+ tend to do more with the Constitution than being something like the Bill of Rights?
What I mean is this. Are any of the first 10 Amendments located anywhere in any of the articles of the Constitution, or are they essentially a seperate document?
Did Amendments 11+ essentially modify parts of the Constitution?
Is it legal to amend the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights are seperate from the Constitution, correct? The Bill of Rights are in and of themselves, correct? Didn't we come one Senate vote away from essentially amending the 1st Amendment (1st of the Bill of Rights) concerning flag desecration? Flag burning and other forms of desecration do no harm (unless one is running down a street waving a flaming piece of cloth and then drops it on some dry grass and starts a forest fire). Common law versus political law.
I enjoyed school myself, but yes, school needs to be reformed. Below are some ideas.
History classes can change their format. Assign chapter(s) to read overnight (between school days). Teacher lectures for a few days or so. Discussions amongst the whole class are present during lectures. Teacher could hand out worksheets, and the teacher could have a master worksheet with all the answers. Students could be given "participation" points for answering a question correctly. This replaces traditional homework by having homework done in class as a class all aloud. Then test grades make up a majority of the overall grade.
Is this giving them authorization to look without warrants? If so, it's unlawful. No amount of legislation, short of amending the Bill of Rights, will give them this authority.
Is this simply giving them access to the system easier once they have furnished the warrant? If so, let me say this. How many here would be okay if the government required lock makers, for your front doors of your house, to have a built in backdoor type thing in which they could easily unlock if they have the warrant to enter?
Since the cell phones tend to be the property of the students (whereas the lockers would be the property of the school), the school has no right to search a student's piece of property.
Maybe they have the right to search a student's piece of property if there is just cause that a crime is being committed, but as for what the procedure is to take, I don't know. Depending on what it is, probably contact the police, contact the parents, and perform a search on the cell phone if the cell phone, which is student property, is physically located on the campus at the time. I think the same can go for backpacks and whatnot. (I'd have to think about all of this though.)
While reading some Tesla information, it did come across my mind that it should be physically possible, if figured out how, to do the stuff Superman does, more or less.
I never heard of that before. Thanks for letting me know.
Hypothetically, if a country doesn't want to go along with a world wide standards organization, couldn't they break off and do their own thing inside their own geographical boarders?
Each country could essentially create their own internet if they don't want to be part of The Internet.
It was created by the American government if I understand everything, so maybe The Internet should remain in the hands of the American government. Television, telephones, etc., are different since each country has control over their broadcasting licenses/frequencies/whatever and has control over their own telephone lines within the country. Like American's country code for telephones would be 1.
There's also the saying that if it's not broke, don't fix it.
Why not keep it with ICANN, but do some restructuring? For example, allow any country with a significant population, let us say 10 million, to opt in to have their country elect a non-political figure (could never have been a politician in their life or even attempted to run) onto this board for a period of 5 years.
Did the students sign any sort of agreement/contract stating they will not engage in this type of activity? I am not sure how legal the university's move is. I would imagine that the university has no authority over the existence of the site, but they do have authority to suspend scholarships, etc. for what is posted on the site. If they post something defaming to the university for example, then maybe they can suspend their scholarships, etc.
The university is doing this as a scare tactic I bet. If all the athletes were kicked off the team, the university would probably lose a lot of revenue if like their football team had zero players on it. Cannot sell tickets that way.
It is definitely a frivolous lawsuit. MySpace isn't liable in any way as I can see it. The only possible way they'd be liable is if they made some sort of false claim that they can 100% protect children.
There will be winners in this lawsuit though. By how it makes it to the media, it might make parents more aware that they should be monitoring what their kids are doing, whether it's online or offline. More winners will be the lawyers from both sides, which I assume get paid whether or not they win the case.
Less likely usernames would be used to catch the spam. Less likely usernames as in names people are less likely to use, but a dictionary attack would still hit. SpamMeAndDie21@domain would be one that people probably don't have.
You've obviously misread what I said. I said dummy e-mail addresses. The e-mail provider would have something like emailme29@domain and spamandban32@domain and so on. A bunch of stuff that a dictionary attacker would hit and get banned maybe for 2 weeks.
I guess the solution is education.
Websites, guestbooks, and forums shouldn't publically display e-mail addresses. Maybe showing them in a picture file, a graphic, would make it a bit more difficult and could be an okay compromise.
People shouldn't sign up for unwise things lest they use a safety e-mail address where junk can end up at. The creation of services, like paid to surf sites and other sites that promise rewards, can sucker people into signing up to only sell their lists to spammers.