People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
Not/all/ people - but the ones that do are the ones that get in the news.
Me, too. Sometimes, I see a tiny green 'blob' in the middle of my left eye. Actually, it's off-centre now. I think my yellow spot has moved around it over the years.
Actually, it's taken me about 10 years to read about 50 pages of Finnegans Wake. Who knows - maybe I'll finish it one day?
What do apostrophes have to do with Finnegans Wake? Well, there isn't one in the title. It's not about a wake in honour of someone named Finnegan. Rather, it's a wake up call to those people JJ classes as 'Finnegans'. Or something.
For me, it would have to be this segment from The Three Amigos:
Jefe: I have put many beautiful pinatas in the storeroom, each of them filled with little suprises.
El Guapo: Many pinatas?
Jefe: Oh yes, many!
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
There's another possibility. Capitalism may make everyone richer, and some much richer, but then some people will feel relatively poor, and start to get upset. Socialism ought to keep everyone at the same level of wealth (my feeling is that it will be lower, since there is less incentive to work hard), but maybe with less to complain about.
All wild guesses, of course, since all of this is so hard to test. But I've never heard any convincing argument against any of this. All I have learned over the years is that socialists are good with words; and are often well meaning, but more usually are simply jealous. My belief is that capitalism reflects human nature most faithfully, and I think it's a mistake to meddle with human nature.
I think 'defined' was obviously a poor word to use. It's just that I read something recently that said that space was created at the same time as matter in the big bang, and that the two were interdependent in some way. Before that, I'd always imagined that the big bang happenned in the middle of space, but now I have to imagine that there wasn't even any space to begin with, and that the frontier of space still coincides with the expanding frontier of matter. What's beyond that anyone's guess. Nothing, apparently.
Of course, no-one really knows, but it's still interesting. Thanks for coming back with your thoughts.
That makes sense. If the space your measuring the speed in is expanding (and I believe that space is 'defined' by the objects within it), then you have to take that into account when calculating it. Or something.
I try to read about this stuff, honestly, but it just doesn't 'sink in'.
Many thanks for the reply. I have to admit that I wasn't expecting one. From the Wikipedia article, I'm guessing that the event horizon means that at such distances you can't think of the universe as an ordinary space where normal things happen. You can imagine them, but you can't measure them. And if you can't measure them, then they don't really mean anything. I guess it also means that if two things were moving faster than light relative to each other, then we would never know about it. You might even assume that it could be happening all the time, somehow, but we would never know.
I suspect there isn't an easy anwer to this. Not easy enough for me to understand, anyway.
This is something I often think about, but never found an answer to. Given the size of the universe, and the idea that it is meant to be expanding, is it possible that two objects at opposite sides could be moving away from each other at a speed greater that that of light?
Or is the idea of 'opposite sides' invalid? Or does the speed of light somehow limit the size of the universe? Or its rate of expansion?
You probably know this by now, but if you had a Deleted Item Retention period configured on the Mailbox Store, he could have recovered the mail himself, using Outlook. It will even retain a deleted mailbox for a configurable period.
Worst thing about Exchange is the constantly changing APIs. Ever tried to accept a meeting request using DAV?
The grue is a sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave up on Lost during the second series. Actually, probably about half way through. I thought, 'these people are taking the piss'.
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase.
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
Not /all/ people - but the ones that do are the ones that get in the news.
Me, too. Sometimes, I see a tiny green 'blob' in the middle of my left eye. Actually, it's off-centre now. I think my yellow spot has moved around it over the years.
Actually, it's taken me about 10 years to read about 50 pages of Finnegans Wake. Who knows - maybe I'll finish it one day?
What do apostrophes have to do with Finnegans Wake? Well, there isn't one in the title. It's not about a wake in honour of someone named Finnegan. Rather, it's a wake up call to those people JJ classes as 'Finnegans'. Or something.
For me, it would have to be this segment from The Three Amigos:
Jefe: I have put many beautiful pinatas in the storeroom, each of them filled with little suprises.
El Guapo: Many pinatas?
Jefe: Oh yes, many!
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
I'm sure Google's now big enough to get into the news business for itself. This could be a good opportunity for them.
There's another possibility. Capitalism may make everyone richer, and some much richer, but then some people will feel relatively poor, and start to get upset. Socialism ought to keep everyone at the same level of wealth (my feeling is that it will be lower, since there is less incentive to work hard), but maybe with less to complain about.
All wild guesses, of course, since all of this is so hard to test. But I've never heard any convincing argument against any of this. All I have learned over the years is that socialists are good with words; and are often well meaning, but more usually are simply jealous. My belief is that capitalism reflects human nature most faithfully, and I think it's a mistake to meddle with human nature.
It's in this (useful, but long) one:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Reminds me of a story I read a long time ago.
Reminds me of a great joke I heard from Jack Dee (someone texted it to him on his show).
"I thought I saw your name on a loaf of bread the other day, but when I looked closer it said 'Thick Cut'"
I hate to see weasel-words like 'may' or 'could' in headlines. They hardly lend credibility.
Shame it can't be accessed outside the US and Canada.
I think 'defined' was obviously a poor word to use. It's just that I read something recently that said that space was created at the same time as matter in the big bang, and that the two were interdependent in some way. Before that, I'd always imagined that the big bang happenned in the middle of space, but now I have to imagine that there wasn't even any space to begin with, and that the frontier of space still coincides with the expanding frontier of matter. What's beyond that anyone's guess. Nothing, apparently.
Of course, no-one really knows, but it's still interesting. Thanks for coming back with your thoughts.
That makes sense. If the space your measuring the speed in is expanding (and I believe that space is 'defined' by the objects within it), then you have to take that into account when calculating it. Or something.
I try to read about this stuff, honestly, but it just doesn't 'sink in'.
Many thanks for the reply. I have to admit that I wasn't expecting one. From the Wikipedia article, I'm guessing that the event horizon means that at such distances you can't think of the universe as an ordinary space where normal things happen. You can imagine them, but you can't measure them. And if you can't measure them, then they don't really mean anything. I guess it also means that if two things were moving faster than light relative to each other, then we would never know about it. You might even assume that it could be happening all the time, somehow, but we would never know.
I suspect there isn't an easy anwer to this. Not easy enough for me to understand, anyway.
This is something I often think about, but never found an answer to. Given the size of the universe, and the idea that it is meant to be expanding, is it possible that two objects at opposite sides could be moving away from each other at a speed greater that that of light?
Or is the idea of 'opposite sides' invalid? Or does the speed of light somehow limit the size of the universe? Or its rate of expansion?
Not in November. :@)
You probably know this by now, but if you had a Deleted Item Retention period configured on the Mailbox Store, he could have recovered the mail himself, using Outlook. It will even retain a deleted mailbox for a configurable period.
Worst thing about Exchange is the constantly changing APIs. Ever tried to accept a meeting request using DAV?
Someone's already mentioned good ole Brasso (delicious), but I've used T-Cut and Color-Bak with good results on even deep scratches.
The grue is a sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.