Aren't they able to distinguish between biological material, (which I suppose is found in bombs, that or some form of liquid.) and the electronics in the XBox? What would have set the machine off?
(Or does the machine do nothing, and leave the interpretation up to the user?)
Cue exaggerated American accent: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false."
THE ENTIRE EDUCATED PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
We all agree. (we've excluded those of us who don't, of course) I guess we must be right...
Whether you're wrong or not is irrelevant, of course, so long as you don't exclude the possibility that you might be so.
It seems to me that it's a little bit silly for anyone who claims to support (or be involved in) science to allow bias to influence their observations, to the point of mocking other (possibly misinformed, though this is unimportant) theories. Ideally, science is (should be) based on the observation of what is, and not silly politics.
It's not possible to conclusively prove or confirm the theory that all life evolved from some form of matter which either appeared at some point in time, or always was. Nor is it possible to conclusively prove that life was created by an 'intelligent designer' who appeared at some point in time, or always was. To dismiss either theory because you disagree is folly; there is evidence for both.
So much for objective Science.
Re:The price is about the same as CD + Stick
on
Barenaked USB Drive
·
· Score: 1
Add the price of another CD in there, and you're about right.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's how the aliens in 'War of the Worlds' managed their space flight!
Ah yes, that is what I'd meant.
Thanks. I'm not quite up to scratch on bomb-building.
Aren't they able to distinguish between biological material, (which I suppose is found in bombs, that or some form of liquid.) and the electronics in the XBox?
What would have set the machine off?
(Or does the machine do nothing, and leave the interpretation up to the user?)
What's the purpose of a black stripe over the eyes?
How effective is it in preventing recognition?
Or is the reason less obvious than that?
Why didn't we know the japanese word "chokuegambo" last year?
Is it a new word? Or are they assuming that nobody here speaks japanese?
Only if you're not an asylum seeker. :)
Printed Circuit Boards?
Hehe. It looks like something Batman would wear...
You gave tools to a niece? That doesn't seem right.
Cue exaggerated American accent:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false."
(Yes yes, it's slightly irrelevant, I know.)
War between Octopi?
Yes. And it's a pity that you don't represent most other people, or part of your projected outcome might be correct.
Good batteries on your laptop, I guess.
You took your time getting here.
...where a meta-rant is 5 times more likely to be seen as insightful.
100% of any group (which isn't defined by their compliance to a trend) doing anything seems unlikely.
Quoth the Vo0k,"Whoops."
Buzzer?
The match doesn't end until we have a knock-out.
No no no. All he has to do is watch 3 movies at once. Maximum efficiency. :)
Uh, I think he's an Aussie.
We all agree. (we've excluded those of us who don't, of course) I guess we must be right...
Whether you're wrong or not is irrelevant, of course, so long as you don't exclude the possibility that you might be so.
It seems to me that it's a little bit silly for anyone who claims to support (or be involved in) science to allow bias to influence their observations, to the point of mocking other (possibly misinformed, though this is unimportant) theories. Ideally, science is (should be) based on the observation of what is, and not silly politics.
It's not possible to conclusively prove or confirm the theory that all life evolved from some form of matter which either appeared at some point in time, or always was. Nor is it possible to conclusively prove that life was created by an 'intelligent designer' who appeared at some point in time, or always was. To dismiss either theory because you disagree is folly; there is evidence for both.
So much for objective Science.
Add the price of another CD in there, and you're about right.
Okay, fair enough. :)
(At least now, I wont offend any middle english.
also-known-as as not rich?
I don't believe that is my name, actually.
But by all means, carry on.
If we want to be technical...
"Thee" is to "Thou" as "Yourself" is to "You"
Grammatical parallels are somewhat clearer that way.
"Is given thee"
vs
"Thou art given"